Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 982 of 1002 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 28 Mar 95 20:08:10 To : All 31 Mar 95 02:01:20 Subj : Re(2): Roswell - A Real Cover Up ? ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by Steven * Originally to All * Originally dated 23 Mar 1995, 21:24 From: Steven@etheric.demon.co.uk (Steven) Date: 23 Mar 95 10:37:29 GMT Organization: Etheric Vision Message-ID: <483828717wnr@etheric.demon.co.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo check this out Dudes The Roswell Incident.... A series of events were taking place in the US in early 1946. The President of The United States was introduced a letter from a small group of Tibetan high Lamas. Basically the letter pointed out that their Teacher - The Buddha was choosing to take an incarnation in the United States. The President did not take this lightly for the letter also pointed out that The Buddha was Jesus. So he was faced with the Second Coming of Christ. Just like the Three Wise Man knowing the location of the Coming Christ. These Lamas were preparing the way for a place for the Buddha to live. They requested from The President a parcel of governmently owned and protected piece of land that they hoped the US government would not only offer but build the housing as a community for His students. They requested that the communnity be called Shambhalla. The President sent a small group to investigate and they located a book in a small village in the northern Himalayas near Shrinigar a town called Ladhak at a monastery in Hem. This book gives a full description of Jesus's visit and His recognition by the high lamas to be The Christos, The Lord of The World, their original Buddha. This book was tested for its date and accuracy and its historical period but was not allowed to leave the monastery. Along with that they investigated as best they could the principle of reincarnation due to the fact that this child was a reincarnation of Jesus. They found that the basis of reincarnation applied to their high lamas like the Dalai Lama is to them a verifiable fact. Many of these high lamas before leaving their bodies do exactly what The Buddha requested these lamas to do which was He gave them information before dying or they would receive a vision because the being has not incarnated for a long time and while preparing for incarnation they tell their students where they will incarnate and what they need. So quite often the Dalai Lama will leave a letter with His student, with his mother and father's name and address, description of the house and the time and period along with physical signs of his own incarnation as to how he will look in case they meet him when he's much older. He will prophesise his future incarnation. So this in itself helped to affirm that these incredibly peace loving monks who are not out to rule the world but serve it are very likely to be correct. By 1947 this was a big issue in the government and in the office of The President. They designated a large parcel of land to the Tibetans and called it Shambhalla. Soon after the building began, Roswell, New Mexico had space craft "debris" scattered over a good portion of land and two Kamakize space craft committed suicide. Three survivors were still alive and one lived for up to two years. These extra terrestrials are the Greys. THIS IS THE TRUTH Keep an open mind but use common sense and investigate my very word. First of all the metal that they found cannot be bent, burnt or destroyed in any way yet pieces of it are scattered, not chunks, not portions of a ship but pieces people. How can you possibly not have figured this out yet ? This is not a little cover up - this is a big psychic wave of illusion that has been facing humanity since the beginning of prehistoric times. These Greys are completely EVIL. The United States government is a well educated military force and military strategy they do not lack. The scattering of debris and the direct Kamikaze crash of TWO not one SPACE CRAFT has been publicly found and the government took over. Now this is rare folks because niether before or since that time has any person seen a crashed space craft. This was an intentional disruption of govermental actions. It allowed direct contact with the President of that time Dwight D. Eissenhower along with other groups he felt confident should attend the meetings between him and the aliens. The only means of communication was psychic transmission. Our government was under the control of the Greys and the President immediately stopped the Tibetans from having any further assistance - he took the name Shambhalla and turned it in to Camp David. This was NO coincidence. These high lamas represented the goodness of humanity and the willingness that we have all put forth for the ending of war and the establishing of human rights and America according to Columbus was prophesied to be the Land of The Coming Christ. But since that time abductions, cattle mutations, and even generation to generation we are finding the Greys are infiltrating our lives, our Spirit, our consciousness. Yet at the same time in America people are seeing Angels, television programs are being put together in order to better understand the overwhelming phenomenon of ghosts, and psychic experiences that are being uncovered in America. For example : A whole school of children were held captive in a room where two people had a bomb. Those two people put themselves in a circle and the children who were outside the circle began seeing angels and these angels were disincarnated relatives who they never met. The angels told the children don't worry you will not be harmed and when the bomb went off the two people in the circle were dead and noone else was harmed and impressions of angels were left on the wall. These children, many of them later began talking and even right after immediately spoke of the angels that were in the room, there parents the police and the parimedics all had to deal with the fact that none of the children were hurt and many of them were claiming that the angels saved them. Later some of the children found out that the person who was the angel that they spoke to was a rlelative who was dead. Now if we all remember the teachings of Jesus, He said that we were all divine and that actually we are Angels and we go to Heaven and there is a life after death and there is no reason to cry when someone dies because we all meet in the end - We all meet with Jesus. Looks like there is a meeting taking place in America and when people die they stay there in Heaven with Jesus and if you need help they are there for you until you die and then who knows we all come back and that makes Heaven on Earth and that was the teachings of Jesus. So it looks like Jesus incarnated in America. If you take that as a consideration along with certain cycles of time as He grows up then the whole human race will have Christ consciousness. According to the Tibetans He incarnated in 1951 and if you put that into cycles in 1960 He was 9 years old and Kennedy was President and the Beatles were playing "Hey Jude" and world peace was the focus of the United States by the hippies and by the peace movement. And then another 9 year cycle He was 18 and the war in Vietnam and the peace movement came head to head and ended the Vietnam war within 3 years and created Watergate and impeached a President. And during all this time the UFO technology and directions given to the government by the Greys were turning out to be complete lies. No-one could fly the ships no-one could understand hyperspace and no-one could withstand the dimensional change of consciousness while inside the space craft. So for many years, even today the government is trying to make sense of it but what they're finding out is that everything including the technology is totally worthless in this electromagnetic field dimension. These ships travel through time. Their psychic presence stimulates our ability to think in doubt along with increasing our pride and self centeredness. This means we are in a misunderstanding a psychic maya as to how to figure things out because we are impressed by the Greys to think without our heart where intuition governs our visions. With Christ among humanity He counteracts the lower psychic ego and He impresses upon the world and humanity's inventors, writers and creative thinkers. The inventions and civilized technologies are handed to us through visions and ideas one step at a time. We're really not figuring anything out we are being given the gift of solving problems. Solving problems means that you understand and you see beyond the point that you are at, to the point that you will be and what it takes to get there - this is called DIVINE GRACE that's why no-one invents anything but several people at the same time are being revealed things and when they go to the patent office they're only hours away from the other people putting in their patents. It's called the Plan of God. Its our own qualities that are like the Greys that we are evolving out of and more into our Christ-like qualities. When the Greys abduct people they do it and they keep everything secret. They carry out experiments as though we are laboratory rats. Its totally heartless, and so was the Japanese torturing when they tortured their enemy. Or the followers of Hitler when they experimented on people, the heartlessnes is the same, and their desire to make sure no-one finds out is also the same. The cover up of the Greys is not the fault of humanity but is more based on the fear of an out of control situation. The government sees it as an invasion of Earth and at this level of the invasion they're doing there best to tolerate it because they know Jesus is their only hope. The US government is aware of their past and in many ways is supporting the efforts of the Christ. So try and take this with an open mind and a greater understanding of the human effort of trying to contain such a grevious mistake. They turn their back on the Reappearance of Jesus which would of meant in 1951 a large group of Tibetans would be living in America in Maryland, in a place called Shambhalla and very auspicious signs such as the elimination of disease would have been the effect within the first 9 years of Jesus's teachings and reactivation of the sacred pyramids of America. By the time He was 18 years old the entire hippy movement would of been masterful healers greater than the disciples of Jesus known in the Bible, and they would have eradicated all wars and hunger. By the time He turned 27 the relationships that we have now with extra terrestrials would have been an encounter such as the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, these were not Greys they were Pleiadeans, Sirians and Arcturians that serve The Christ but due to nucleur power plants strategically placed near sacred zones this eliminated the ability for these ships to come near those sites for these are their inter-transmittal nodes. They are like airports. At that time not only world peace but now cosmic brotherhood was our destiny. All these things are still taking place through The Christ Himself. 9 years later at the age 36 the crop circles are beginning to take form and evolving. These are the bridging between humanity and their cosmic brothers and sisters - this is as close as Christ can get them - due to the form of technology humanity has developed. Since that time 8 years has past and world UN intervention has become the way to maintain peace and planetary presidents like Jimmy Carter are overseeing govermental negotiations. The Internet and mass communications are opening the door to world peace, prosperity and a much quicker way to share medical research and resources. Within the next year both the Russsians and The Americans will be united in efforts of space and world brotherhood based on Christianity stemming from Russia. The sharing of this technology from both these countries will unlock an unknown technology from Russia which is known as Psionics. The Russian people their scientists and government has put an extensive amount of research into the development of healing at a distance and finding out how it works and what effects it has on all the kingdoms. When this is developed between the two countries and environmental conditions have changed due to the fact that the Greys and world heartlessness is ending. Then we will come in contact with other beings from other worlds who know our Lord as theirs. And at this time the Christ will present Himself. A comment :- There are many people who are psychically communicating or under the influence of astral psychic perception and they are receiving information about extra terrestrials and how they are the Hierarchy. This is not true. The extra terrestrials that will make contact with earth when we have become intuitively in the same likeness then we will find ourselves in the same way we have evolved toward other nations as just being human but bigger than we thought. It's more like we are all over the place. Not necessarily are we extra terrestrials but those brothers and sisters that are can be human too and they don't have to be just from Earth. It's just like in our consciousness we need to release prejudice and discrimination toward thinking that we are the only ones and anything else other than us is inferior. That consciousness alone comes from the Greys; as a human we do not think this way. So we are learning to love other kinds of people other races and other nations that in the past because of the Greys we hated and feared. Buddha Maitreya Please feel free to distribute this information. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 920 of 957 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 30 Mar 95 18:44:52 To : All 02 Apr 95 01:52:14 Subj : Bogus UFO Document, 1/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ALTERED DOCUMENT DISCOVERED IN ROSWELL DEBATE by Barry Greenwood (Just Cause, Copyright 1994 by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, PO Box 176, Stoneham, MA 02180, published bi-monthly with a subscription rate of $15/yr.) Examination of a document presented by proponents of the Roswell incident as proof of a U.S. Air Force policy on crashed-disc recovery has revealed that the document has been altered. The alteration appears to have been a deliberate attempt to convince readers that the Air Force had put it's stamp of approval on proposed guidelines for the handling of downed UFOs of any kind including, when subsequently identified, foreign space vehicles. In reality, such was not the case. The document is a November 3, 1961 draft proposal1 memo on the staffing of intelligence teams for a variety of purposes (see Exhibit 1, two pages). One part of these purposes related to the intelligence collection activities of proposed Projects Moon Dust and Blue Fly, defined in Exhibit 1, page 2. These projects are now frequently cited as evidence that procedures existed for the "exploitation" of unknown crashed vehicles. This does not mean that the procedures are exclusively in effect for UFO recovery since it is clear from the document that the primary purpose of the proposed projects was to take advantage of downed spacecraft, whether Russian or otherwise. Yet one would certainly expect that such requirements would cover a broad range of possibilities, just in case UFOs were really extraterrestrial vehicles. That such projects existed for a time is not in dispute. However, the 1961 memo, as can be seen in Exhibit 1, page 1, contained a handwritten notation in the top half of the page by a Lt. Colonel Norman M. Rosner to the effect that "This draft proposal was not approved and was not forwarded for action." Notations bracket portions of page 2 regarding Moon Dust and Blue Fly with a simple "No," apparently, at least in 1961, giving a thumbs down on both projects as defined. On page 96 of the new Roswell book, "The Truth About The UFO Crash At Roswell" by Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt, a statement appears dealing with this matter, "In November 1961, another policy was established by the Air Force in a document sent to various air force intelligence functions." The problem here is that according to CAUS's copy of the document, released to Robert Todd under the FOIA in August 1979, the document was not "policy." Small point to some perhaps but the issue becomes larger upon scanning the document appendix of the Randle/Schmitt book. On page 2O6, copies of the first two pages of the 1961 memo appear noticeably changed (see Exhibit 2 from Clifford Stone's book "UFOS: Let The Evidence Speak For Itself," pages 202-203, identical to those reproduced in the Randle/Schmitt book). Gone are the Rosner handwritten notation and the "No" markings beside the project names. Perhaps Randle and Schmitt had a different released version of the memo at another time? Closer examination of the copy in the book revealed several more distressing things. First, in the altered version, while the handwriting is missing, the typed author and rank still appear under where the signature used to be, completely out of place on a normal document without such amendments such as what appeared on CAUS's authentic original release in Exhibit 1. This was hard evidence that the notation was deliberately whited-out or otherwise obscured. Well, perhaps the government itself altered the copy at a later time to finalize the official status of Moon Dust and Blue Fly? This would then have been released to UFOlogists after Todd had received his copy. But a problem surfaces with this explanation, Check the letterhead around Exhibit 1. One will notice two marks above and to either side of "Department of the Air Force." These aren't obviously paper punch holes in the government's copy made to top bind the document, as is normally done in government. Then notice the word "Force" in the letterhead. The "RC" is missing. This was caused by the inclusion of a paper punch hole by Robert Todd to bind his photocopy of the document released to him by the Air Force in 1979. Let us return to this thought shortly. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 921 of 957 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 30 Mar 95 18:44:52 To : All 02 Apr 95 01:52:16 Subj : Bogus UFO Document, 2/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ In a phone conversation during the summer of 1994 with Kevin Randle, this editor asked where Randle's copy of the 1961 memo came from. Randle replied that it had come from Clifford Stone, a FOIA researcher from New Mexico. I proceeded to check Stone's version of the Moon Dust story in his publications. In the book "UFOS: Let The Evidence Speak For Itself" (1991), Stone reproduces the altered document on pages 202-207 in full. The first two pages of Stone's reproductions are virtually identical to the reproductions in the Randle/Schmitt book, verifying Randle's statement to me in the phone conversation that his copy came from Stone. Robert Todd inquired about Stone's source of the memo in letters dated April 5, April 25, and September 17, 1994. Stone responded that the memo was released by the Department of Defense via the State Department, which he said had the document and needed clearance from DOD for release. This was prompted by a Stone FOIA request in 1981. Unfortunately, Stone apparently no longer has the cover letter for the document release. Stone's book doesn't clarify his document's origin. Neither does another Stone publication, "Special Report 1: The UFO Recovery Operations (1990), which reproduces the 1961 memo in altered form. Again, the handwriting is gone and the two "Nos" on page two are missing. On this copy, unlike the ones in Stone's 1991 book and the Randle/Schmitt book, the Air Force paper punch holes and Todd's paper punch-out of "Force" do appear. So what? If Stone had received his document around 1981 from the Department of Defense via the State Department, how did these copies possess a Robert Todd paper punch hole through the letterhead? Todd did not send copies back to the government to be reused again for FOIA releases. This editor received a copy of the 1961 memo from Todd long ago and I know I did not alter it. Inspection of the altered document as compared to the authentic one reveals a marked difference in clarity, indicating that the altered version is one or more generations removed from the authentic copy, which one would expect if Todd's copy were changed and then recopied again. One can still see fragments left of the handwriting intruding into the typewritten name of Lt. Col. Rosner. Due to this deletion, the document acquires an elevated status from that of a rejected draft proposal to that of "official Air Force policy." The document continues to scurry through the UFO community even now in it's altered state. In a recent article in "UFO Universe," titled "Project Moon Dust - Classified Above Top Secret," author Kevin Randle, deceived by the altered copy, said that, "In November 1961, another _policy_ was established by the Air Force in a document sent to various Air Force Intelligence functions" followed by extensive quotes from the memo (underlining added by the editor). There is no suspicion by CAUS that Randle and Schmitt were responsible for the altered copy, feeling that they were honestly deceived. But it does stress something that CAUS had learned long ago about documents -- never accept something at face value from a secondary source unless it is shown beyond all doubt that such a source can establish the authenticity of the material with cover letters or other documentation. As for Clifford Stone's ability to document the alteration as having come from the government, this has not yet been done. He is invited to assist CAUS in tracing the pedigree of the 1961 memo to determine who is responsible for forging, by means of omission, another semi-false document which was then unleashed upon the UFO community. It is an indisputable fact that the altered document was based upon Robert Todd's copy of the original rather than upon a government release. It is also incumbent upon us to insure that these things do not continue to plague UFO research as they have so frequently done in the past. As Clifford Stone's 1991 book says, "Let the Evidence Speak for Itself." --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 922 of 957 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 30 Mar 95 18:44:54 To : All 02 Apr 95 01:52:16 Subj : Roswell, 1/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The Air Force Report on Roswell: An Absence of Evidence by Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney (IUR, September/October 1994, Volume 19, Number 5. International UFO Reporter, Copyright 1994 by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, 2457 West Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659, published bimonthly with a subscription rate of $25/yr.) As almost every reader of IUR must know by now, on September 8 of this year, the Air Force released a twenty-three page report, entitled Report of Air Force Research Regarding the "Roswell Incident." This report is dated July 1994, contains thirty-three attachments numbering hundreds of additional pages, and purports to "stand as the final official Air Force response regarding this matter." The release of this report and its conclusion - that the Roswell debris came from a top-secret balloon project - was widely reported in the media, including by major television networks and the New York Times, which ran a cover story on the report in its Sunday edition. Despite all this attention, the details of the Air Force report and conclusion have not always been made clear. In this article, we will explain the Air Force conclusion and the reasons they provide to support their theory about Roswell. We will also explain why the Roswell research community finds the Air Force hypothesis so weak and internally inconsistent by focusing on the testimony Air Force investigators gathered from a few carefully-chosen witnesses. The impetus for the Air Force report was the initiation of a General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation early this year, at the request of Rep. Stephen Schiff from New Mexico, as reported in the March/April issue of IUR. It is unusual for a government agency that is currently being investigated by the GAO to release a report to the public, as well as to the GAO, long before a GAO inquiry is complete. However, that is only one of the many oddities surrounding this report, as we demonstrate. Whatever its content, the Air Force report marks a milestone in ufology: Not since Project Blue Book was closed in 1969 has any agency of the government commented at such length on any UFO incident. That the Air Force was forced to do so says much about the depth of investigation and evidence that affirms the unusual nature of the debris recovered near Roswell in July 1947. It is impossible to print the report in its entirety in these pages, but we begin by reproducing the Executive Summary to provide a clear statement of the Air Force position. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The "Roswell Incident" refers to an event that supposedly happened in July, 1947, wherein the Army Air Forces (AAF) allegedly recovered remains of a crashed "flying disc" near Roswell, New Mexico. In February, 1994, the General Accounting Office (GAO), acting on the request of a New Mexico Congressman, initiated an audit to attempt to locate records of such an incident and to determine if records regarding it were properly handled. Although the GAO effort was to look at a number of government agencies, the apparent focus was on the Air Force. SAF/AAZ [Security and Special Program Oversight, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force], as the Central Point of Contact for the GAO in this matter, initiated a systematic search of current Air Force offices as well as numerous archives and records centers that might help explain this matter. Research revealed that the "Roswell Incident" was not even considered a UFO event until the 1978-1980 time frame. Prior to that, the incident was dismissed because the AAF originally identified the debris recovered as being that of a weather balloon. Subsequently, various authors wrote a number of books claiming that, not only was debris from an alien spacecraft recovered, but also the bodies of the craft's alien occupants. These claims continue to evolve today and the Air Force is now routinely accused of engaging in a "cover-up" of this supposed event. The research located no records at existing Air Force offices that indicated any "cover-up" by the USAF or any indication of such a recovery. Consequently, efforts were intensified by Air Force researchers at numerous locations where records for the period in question were stored. The records reviewed did not reveal any increase in operations, security, or any other activity in July, 1947, that indicated any such unusual event may have occurred. Records were located and thoroughly explored concerning a then-TOP SECRET balloon project, designed to attempt to monitor Soviet nuclear tests, known as Project Mogul. Additionally, several surviving project personnel were located and interviewed, as was the only surviving person who recovered debris from the original Roswell site in 1947, and the former officer who initially identified the wreckage as a balloon. Comparison of all information developed or obtained indicated that the material recovered near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device and most likely from one of the Mogul balloons that had not been previously recovered. Air Force research efforts did not disclose any records of the recovery of any "alien" bodies or extraterrestrial materials. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 923 of 957 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 30 Mar 95 18:44:54 To : All 02 Apr 95 01:52:16 Subj : Roswell, 2/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ There are two important points to note immediately. It is clear from this summary that the Air Force couldn't find any physical evidence that proves or documentation that clearly states that a balloon from Project Mogul was recovered by rancher Mac Brazel or officers from the 509th Bomb Group. Second, the Air Force has no Mogul balloon material from 1947 to show to witnesses to provide a positive identification; given the many years since the project ended, it is not surprising that no material can be located. Still, without such confirmation, the Air Force explanation relies upon inference from verbal testimony, not solid, hard evidence. THE AIR FORCE CONCLUSION Given this lack of evidence, how can the Air Force conclude that the debris near Roswell was from Project Mogul? The key statement in the Executive Summary is the phrase "Comparison of all information developed or obtained." This statement does not say "Comparison of all information available" about the incident, and that is the crucial omission (and admission) of the Air Force investigators. The Air Force certainly read almost all major publications on Roswell, including books by Randle and Schmitt, Friedman and Berliner, and the Roswell Report published by CUFOS, so they were aware of the many witnesses interviewed by the investigators. Nevertheless, they confined their interviews to only two former Air Force personnel: Sheridan Cavitt, the Counter-Intelligence Corps officer who accompanied Jesse Marcel to the ranch site; and Irving Newton, the weather officer at Carswell AFB in Fort Worth who identified the debris in Ramey's office as a standard weather balloon. They also interviewed three surviving members of Project Mogul. Given the many, many persons who have been identified as firsthand or secondhand Roswell witnesses, that the Air Force interviewed only five people is truly astonishing. Two key former military personnel whom they did not interview were General Arthur Exon, who confirmed the presence of two sites and a gouge in the ground, and Jesse Marcel, Jr., who handled the debris his father brought home. Nor did they try to interview any of the other living military witnesses mentioned in the two books by Randle and Schmitt, including Walter Haut, who distributed the press release and still lives in Roswell. Many Roswell witnesses have passed away, but interviews with some were recorded before their deaths. One would expect that the Air Force investigators would be interested in such material, but they never requested the tapes on which Bill Rickett, former second-in-command to Cavitt, discussed his knowledge of the crash and recovery, or the tapes on which Edwin Easley, Provost Marshall at Roswell in 1947, admitted that he was still sworn to secrecy about the event (which would not be true for Project Mogul after all these years). Except for Project Mogul personnel, the Air Force also decided not to interview civilians with knowledge of the event, including Glenn Dennis, the mortician who claims he talked to a nurse who assisted with autopsies on alien bodies; Bill Brazel, son of Mac Brazel; or Loretta Proctor, a former neighbor of Mac, who saw some of the debris and talked to Mac about it. The Air Force's explanation for their curious lack of interest in certain witnesses is explained on page eight of the report: While the historical document search was in progress, it was decided to attempt to locate and interview several persons identified as still living who could possibly answer questions generated by the research. . . . Again, the focus was on interviewing persons that could address specific issues raised by research and no consideration was given to try and locate every alleged witness claimed to have been contacted by the various authors. For example, one of the interviewees thought vital to obtain an official signed, sworn statement from was Sheridan Cavitt, Lt Col, USAF (Retired) who is the last living member of the three persons universally acknowledged to have recovered material from the Foster Ranch. Others were also interviewed as information developed. We surely couldn't expect the Air Force to interview every person named in the literature on Roswell, but to have interviewed only five persons calls into question the serious intention and true goal of the investigation. The Air Force investigators did examine thousands of pages of documents. They found no mention of the Roswell incident and the recovery of any debris, except known documents such as the FBI telex of July 8, 1947. Nor, as noted above, did they find any documents that conclusively linked Project Mogul to the Roswell debris, even when they obtained private records and, in one instance, a professional diary of A. P. Crary, another Project Mogul staffer. How, then, did the Air Force decide that a Project Mogul balloon was the source of the Roswell debris? Even though their reasoning is not laid out this neatly in the report, here are the key facts as the Air Force sees them: --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 924 of 957 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 30 Mar 95 18:44:54 To : All 02 Apr 95 01:52:16 Subj : Roswell, 3/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 1. Their search of official records turned up no "information that the 'Roswell Incident' was a UFO event." Nor was there any evidence for the existence of any classified program that is concerned with the storage or exploitation of the debris from Roswell, assuming it was from an alien spacecraft. 2. There is "no indication in official records from the period that there was heightened military operational or security activity which should have been generated if this was, in fact, the first recovery of materials and/or persons from another world." 3. Project Mogul was flying instruments from Alamogordo Army Air Field (now Holloman Air Force Base) whose purpose was classified top secret. These instruments were flown on huge balloon trains composed of many balloons and radar reflectors and so would have provided a substantial amount of potentially unusual debris. 4. Sheridan Cavitt claimed, in his interview of May 1994, that he immediately recognized the debris as part of a balloon. 5. Irving Newton, in July of this year, and consistent with what he has maintained all along, stated that what he saw in General Ramey's office was debris from a balloon. 6. The story about the Roswell event in the July 9 edition of the Roswell Daily Record, quoting Mac Brazel, provides a description of the debris that is reasonably consistent with Mogul balloon material. 7. The photos of debris taken in General Ramey's office are consistent with material from a balloon and radar reflector, and Mogul staffers shown the photos felt the material could have been from one of their balloons. 8. _Some_ of the witness testimony is consistent with material from Mogul balloon material, such as the alleged use of a purplish-pink tape with symbols on it to hold the assembly together. WHAT ROSWELL WAS NOT Before reviewing the testimony and reasoning the Air Force used in the report, we note that the Air Force investigation actually supports the work of Randle and Schmitt, who have previously been able to show that the Roswell object could not have been a V-2 rocket, an experimental aircraft or aircraft crash, or an atomic accident of some kind. The Air Force found no evidence that the Roswell incident was caused by any of these terrestrial sources, which is further proof of the quality of prior investigation on Roswell by UFO researchers. The upshot of this elimination of other terrestrial sources by the Air Force is that there remains only one possible conventional source of the Roswell debris: a Project Mogul balloon train. PROJECT MOGUL Although reports in the media, and the Air Force report itself, seem to indicate that the balloon found near Roswell was a top-secret Mogul balloon, the story is more complicated than that. Project Mogul was designed to determine whether acoustic devices could detect atmospheric shock waves from Soviet nuclear explosions. In 1947 the Soviets had not yet successfully exploded an atomic device, but we knew they were working to develop this capability. Since it was at that time not possible to fly spy planes easily over Soviet territory, we needed another long-range method of monitoring their atomic tests, and one idea was a balloon-borne, low-frequency acoustic device that was developed by personnel connected with New York University. The project was eventually abandoned when the concept was found to be unworkable. Several flights were made in June and July of 1947 that could conceivably be the source of the Roswell debris. Two types of flights were conducted by the project. One type was a test of the actual Mogul device and associated instrumentation; the other was labeled a "service flight" by Project Engineer Charles Moore and was not always logged. All flights seem to have been accounted for, in one way or another, except for Flights 2 through 4, and Flight 9. Although Flight 9 was much closer in time to the recovery of debris, the Air Force suggests that Flight 4 was the source of the debris. Given the existing Mogul records, it is clear that Flight 4 would have been launched no later than June 4. We return to this point below. These earlier flights used neoprene meteorological balloons. The report notes that "Professor Moore stated that the neoprene balloons were susceptible to degradation in the sunlight, turning from a milky white to a dark brown. He described finding remains of balloon trains with reflectors and payloads that had landed in the desert: the ruptured and shredded neoprene would 'almost look like dark gray or black flakes or ashes after exposure to the sun for only a few days.'" To remain at constant altitude, a Mogul balloon actually consisted of several balloons, as shown on the front cover of this issue. This multi-balloon array with associated radar reflectors, the Air Force suggests, came down on the Foster ranch and was found by Mac Brazel on June 14. They base this date on the story in the July 9 Roswell Daily Record, where Brazel is quoted at length. In fact, the Air Force relies heavily upon this newspaper story, the photos in Ramey's office, and their interviews with Cavitt and Mogul personnel. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 925 of 957 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 30 Mar 95 18:44:54 To : All 02 Apr 95 01:52:18 Subj : Roswell, 4/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ THE REPORT'S INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES One way to criticize and expose the weaknesses of the Air Force investigation is to demonstrate the implausibility of certain conclusions or statements. Another is to bring evidence to bear from other witnesses and sources that undermines the evidence presented in the report. A third, which we pursue in this section, is to show that there are serious problems of contradictory testimony and evidence within the report itself that call into question the Mogul explanation. To keep this article from running on endlessly, we focus here only on the most glaring inconsistencies. Extent of the debris. Sheridan Cavitt's signed statement to Colonel Richard Weaver claims "The area of this debris was very small, about 20 feet square." The July 9 newspaper article that the Air Force uses as evidence quotes Brazel as stating that "The rubber [from the balloon] was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter." These statements can't be made to match. One of them must be wrong. General appearance of the debris. Flight 4, if it was the cause of the debris, must have lain in the sun for at least ten days (from June 4 to June 14). Professor Charles Moore stated flatly that after some exposure to the sun, neoprene would turn into "dark gray or black flakes or ashes." Neither Cavitt in his interview, nor Brazel in the newspaper story described finding this type of debris, even though the sun in June in New Mexico is quite intense at the high altitude of the Foster ranch. Once again, key witnesses provide contradictory testimony. Type of balloon. Brazel told the newspaper reporters from the Daily Record that "he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these." This statement has never been possible to square with the original Air Force explanation that a weather balloon was the source of the Roswell debris. It also remains difficult to reconcile with the new balloon explanation because Flight 4 did not consist of any unusual balloon material, despite the highly classified nature of Mogul. Flight 4 simply consisted of several standard balloons. This is evident as well from the testimony gathered from Irving Newton (assuming he was viewing debris from Flight 4), who stated that "this was a balloon and a RAWIN target [the radar reflector]." Additionally, in his signed statement made during his interview, Cavitt claimed that "I remember recognizing this material as being consistent with a weather balloon." The Air Force can't have it both ways. Brazel said the stuff did not resemble a weather balloon; Cavitt and Newton say it did. Symbols on the debris. According to Colonel Albert Trakowski, the Air Force project officer for Mogul, a purplish-pink tape with flower and heart symbols on it was used to hold some of the flimsy Mogul balloon train together. In his newspaper interview, Brazel does mention "some tape with flowers printed upon it" that had been used in the construction. However, Cavitt, who must have had a good, long look at the debris during the recovery, stated at one point that "I do not remember any writing at all on the thing [debris]." Even later, after being further prompted by Colonel Weaver, the interviewer, he still said, "I don't remember anything like that." If Cavitt's memory is correct, a major part of the Air Force evidence is discredited. And if we are to discount his testimony on this point, why should we accept his statements about other aspects of the event? Once again, we have contradictory evidence and testimony within the Air Force report, requiring us to accept testimony selectively from one source or another if we are to agree with the Air Force explanation. Many other oddities could be mentioned, but one more must suffice. Cavitt said that he never met Brazel, but he also admitted recovering material from the debris field. One of us (MR) knows full well how difficult it is to find the debris field without guidance from a local. There is no way that Marcel and Cavitt could have driven from Roswell to the debris field without being shown the way - all the way - by Mac Brazel. That being the case, then Cavitt certainly did meet Brazel. If his memory is so poor about such an obvious fact, what else is he misremembering or still not telling? THE REPORT'S LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES The most glaring, we believe, are the radically different evaluations of the debris by Marcel and Colonel Blanchard, commanding officer at Roswell Army Air Field. If Cavitt so easily recognized the debris as a downed balloon, as did Irving Newton in Fort Worth, why didn't Marcel and Blanchard? There is no logical explanation, especially because we have to assume that Cavitt and Marcel did not stand mute on the debris field, but instead talked about the material and its possible origin. And if they talked at all, then Marcel and Blanchard should at least have been cautious about going public. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 926 of 957 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 30 Mar 95 18:44:54 To : All 02 Apr 95 01:52:18 Subj : Roswell, 5/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The Air Force, in its report, is aware of the difficulty of explaining Blanchard's and Marcel's actions. The best they can suggest is "that there was over-reaction by Colonel Blanchard and Major Marcel." Over-reaction indeed! Now there's an understatement. The boys at Roswell put out a press release, informing the world that the balloon they captured was a flying disc and jeopardizing the security of Project Mogul, even though the head counterintelligence officer has told them the debris is from a balloon, and the best explanation is "over-reaction." This explanation is made even more ludicrous by the successful careers that Marcel, and especially Blanchard, had in the Air Force after this monumental blunder, which should have resulted in instant demotion for them if their actions were what the Air Force is now claiming. It is clear from their testimony that neither Moore nor Athelstan Spilhaus, former director of the NYU Balloon Project, heard of the Roswell incident until approached by investigators. This is simply not believable if the Roswell incident was caused by one of the Project Mogul balloon flights. The events at Roswell must have been a notorious and embarrassing incident for the Army Air Force. For security reasons, it is inconceivable that key Mogul personnel were not told the Roswell debris was definitely a Mogul flight. There would undoubtably be discussions about better security arrangements after this well-publicized farce (which came close to blowing Mogul's cover). Yet Moore did not remember that Mogul had caused the Roswell incident when Bill Moore interviewed him around 1980, and Spilhaus says he was unaware of the incident until contacted this year by the Air Force. That the Air Force does not address this issue is very troubling. A third point which doesn't make much sense, if the Air Force theory is correct, is that Jesse Marcel and his family kept some of the debris after the incident and even showed it to the Cavitts. Mary Cavitt, Sheridan Cavitt's wife, sat in on the Air Force interview, just as she had done during Randle and Schmitt's interviews. At two points, she stated that Jesse brought out material when the Cavitts were visiting. After her interjection, Cavitt himself said, "I remember. He could have had some there at the house and it was, it looked like a foil of some sort, and he could have tried to burn that and it didn't burn very well. I don't know." Look closely at Cavitt's statement. First he said he remembered. Then he qualified his statements with the word "could," and finally he ended with "I don't know." This sounds to us like a man forced by the admissions of his wife to discuss an issue he would have preferred to avoid. The key question is this: If Jesse Marcel knew that the material he and Cavitt recovered was from a balloon, either weather or Mogul, would he have kept some of the debris around the house and brought it out and still played around with it, as if there was something special about it? Obviously not, if the debris was only from a standard balloon, since weather balloons were common in the Air Force. But if the debris really had strange properties, then he might keep it around for later viewing and study, only showing it to other military personnel, like Sheridan Cavitt, who had accompanied him to the site. And, too, he might keep it because he knew the public explanation for Roswell was a cover story, one that had used him as a scapegoat, so he wanted to retain evidence to prove his original evaluation was correct. INVESTIGATIVE WEAKNESSES By now it should be apparent that 1) the Air Force cannot prove that debris from a Mogul balloon train was the cause of the Roswell incident, and 2) the report is self-contradictory and logically inconsistent. The Air Force was quick in their report to criticize the work of UFO researchers because "almost all their information came from verbal reports many years after the alleged incident occurred. . . Most, however, related their stories in their older years, well after the fact." That description applies almost perfectly to the Air Force report, which relies nearly exclusively upon such evidence. Even though Project Mogul documentation exists, there is no paper or physical evidence to prove conclusively that a purplish-pink tape, for example, was used in constructing the balloon trains. Yes, former Mogul personnel claim it was so, but their statements are simply "verbal reports many years after the alleged incident occurred." The same is true for all the critical elements that might link Project Mogul to Roswell. Colonel Weaver, head of the Air Force investigation, admitted as much to Cavitt during the interview. He stated, in response to Cavitt's wishing him good luck at convincing people of the Mogul explanation, that " . . . it is going to be difficult, because like I say we have nothing other than this one formerly classified project that was occurring out there at the same time that was even a little bit 'funny', if you will." This is a telling admission of weakness because, if the source of the Roswell debris was something unusual but conventional, and there was only one project going on in New Mexico that might have caused it, why should it be difficult to convince us that this project - Mogul - was the cause? The answer, as Weaver must be aware, is that the Air Force case is weak. They, like the UFO investigators they criticize, rely on verbal reports and selective use of existing accounts. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 927 of 957 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 30 Mar 95 18:44:54 To : All 02 Apr 95 01:52:18 Subj : Roswell, 6/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ What makes the Air Force report inferior to the best Roswell investigations is its refusal to use all the available testimony, especially their star witnesses. If, as the Air Force claims, time makes memories hazy, then you would expect them to use statements from Charles Moore from around 1980 rather than 1994, since Moore's memory 14 years ago is likely to be more accurate. This is particularly true because, in the meantime, he has read much UFO material by his own admission. However, the Air Force completely ignores the following key statement Charles Moore gave to Bill Moore in 1980: "Based on the description you just gave me, I can definitely rule this out [that Roswell could be a weather or other scientific balloon]. There wasn't' t a balloon in use back in '47, or even today for that matter, that could have produced debris over such a large area or torn up the ground in any way. I have no idea what such an object might have been, but I can't believe a balloon would fit such a description." That is a damning statement that completely refutes the Mogul explanation. Since the Air Force couldn't explain why a key witness has changed his testimony, they found it convenient to ignore previous interviews. We though, are not bound by such artificial restrictions, so have to question why Charles Moore has now changed his mind. In any case, we usually accept the first statements made by a witness, before any contamination has set in. On that basis, Project Mogul could not have been the cause of the Roswell debris. There is one other flagrant lacuna that confirms to us, at least, that the Air Force was not interested in conducting an in-depth investigation into Roswell: the lack of thoughtful and insightful questions by Weaver as he interviewed Cavitt. Earlier we noted the bizarre situation in which Cavitt was able to recognize balloon debris immediately, but Marcel and Blanchard could not. Since this is such a puzzle, you would expect a competent interviewer to ask Cavitt what he told Marcel and what Marcel said in return as they discussed the debris on the ranch. But this matter was never raised by Weaver, making it obvious that he was not interested in pursuing every potentially important lead. Nor did he delve, after Mary Cavitt's comments, into what the Cavitts knew about the debris that Marcel kept at his home. It should have been obvious that the nature of that debris was crucial to the investigation. We have demonstrated how little compelling evidence there is for the Air Force's theory that a Project Mogul balloon array caused the Roswell incident. Why, then did much of the media so blindly accept the Air Force's conclusion? A full answer to that question must await another article, but we can note here the double standard applied to the UFO subject by the press. Just imagine that the Air Force had released a report on some other topic, a report in which they 1) admitted that originally they had lied, and 2) the "real" explanation was still fairly similar to the lie. Can anyone believe that the American press, given their general distrust of the military, and the history of government cover-ups during the Cold War, would automatically believe the new explanation? Yet that is exactly what much of the press has done with Roswell. It truly does boggle the mind. The Air Force report has not halted the GAO investigation or reduced the resolve of Rep. Schiff, who told CUFOS that he is determined to continue his efforts at learning the truth about Roswell. We thank and applaud him for his resolve and political courage. In this article, we have criticized the Air Force report without resorting to much of the evidence collected by investigators over the past fifteen years. When that information is brought to bear, the superficial nature and inherent bias of the report are even more apparent. Although it is very helpful to have Sheridan Cavitt on the record, as well as the Air Force itself, the Air Force report is useful for little else, and it does not contribute toward solving the puzzle of the nature of the debris found near Roswell in 1947. That is truly a shame, given what could have been accomplished. -------------------- Mark Rodeghier, Ph.D., is scientific director of the Center for UFO Studies. Mark Chesney is a CUFOS research associate. -------------------- --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 594 of 609 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 04 Apr 95 19:28:04 To : All 07 Apr 95 01:51:24 Subj : Public Reaction to Roswell film (was Re: I just dont understand....) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by Drew Davidson * Originally to All * Originally dated 1 Apr 1995, 15:39 From: davidson@mercury.interpath.net (Drew Davidson) Date: 1 Apr 95 04:53:07 GMT Organization: None Message-ID: <3lim7j$dj2@mercury.interpath.net> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo In article <3lejk2$3ud@romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu>, Richard Caldwell wrote: > If this film is declared authentic, there will be a reaction from more than > just the "lunatic fringe". > > [...] I think the shit will hit the fan if the film is authenticated. [...] Ah the perils of the passive voice! If the film is authenticated by *whom* is the question. Unless there is a pronouncement by the government of the film's authenticity I don't see much of anything happening, certainly not in any major way outside the confines of ufology. Let's say that the film is totally convincing, accurately portrays 40-year younger versions of various military people purported to be there, and depicts obviously alien bodies. Kodak verifies the films authenticity as well somehow. Perhaps even a couple of people who were in the film finally come forward. If the film is that convincing, more than likely there will be a special 2-hour Encounters episode or something to present the film to the public... hyped up as much as possible of course. Then what? People watch it and are amazed, then go to work the next day and get on with their lives. The government has no official reaction. Life goes on... On the other hand, what if a "more respectable" show like 60 Minutes or 20/20 or PrimeTime Live gets into the act? (BTW, all media references are for USA-based shows -- YMMV.) Perhaps more people will see it and believe, but what will happen then? Even if the people petition the government to do something, do you think Bill Clinton will be able to wrest any UFO data out of the national security establishment? What do you envision happening? Just curious. It's an interesting thought experiment anyway. On a similar thought: what *would* have to happen to cause the proverbial shit to hit the fan in a big way? I'd say something like this: a craft with clearly extraterrestrial technology attacks (or seems to attack) the space shuttle or a commercial airliner, which subsequently crashes, on live TV. There would definitely be mass freakouts after something like that. A mere film of an alien autopsy would certainly give people pause, but I don't think that most people would feel that it affected their lives that much, and it could be safely ignored by the powers that be. Maybe I'm just cynical. In any case, we shall see (I hope). Take it easy, Drew -- Drew Davidson \\ We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we Raleigh, NC, USA \\ can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this \\ is what annoys me. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 603 of 609 From : Daniel Germani 2:281/631.6 04 Apr 95 21:22:04 To : All 08 Apr 95 01:48:28 Subj : Roswell footage. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Hmm, On Sunday there was this report about the alledged Roswell -47 crash on a German commercial station (RTL). They talked to the finder of this movie, and they talked to people of the BBC. They said the had the footage analyzed by KODAK experts, and they said it was real (the footage). They also condacted USAF Pr, and showed some footage about the Mogul Balloon Project. If BBC is indeed going to show this movie on telly, we will finally all know the TRUTH about what happened at Roswell that night in '47. Greets, Daniel Email: maniac@mbh.lightstream.nl --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: CONSPIRACY & PARANOIA .. the american way of life .. (2:281/631.6) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 32 of 97 - 22 + 41 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 12 Apr 95 22:38:00 To : Eur van Andel Subj : BBC-film over Rosswell AFB, starring: "The Zeta Reticuli Greys!" ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Hallo, Eur, > Ik voorspelde dat die film niet uitgezonden zou > worden, of nep was. Even heel simpel en duidelijk, De film wordt uitgezonden, maar dit berichtje van jou lijkt erop dat je weinig geduld hebt! Hoe kun JIJ nu voorspellen dat hij nep is???????? > Vraag: is dat zo? Heeft de BBC hem uitgezonden? > Wanneer? Heeft iemand het gezien? Was-ie nep? Komt er > een film van Spielberg? Wanneer? Hoe heet-ie? Nee, de BBC is een docu aan het maken, waar de beelden in worden getoond. Deze zal rond Augustus worden gedraait, op de BBC. De duitse RTL heeft ook al een bod gedaan op deze docu! Dus hij zal ook in duitsland getoont worden! Waarom Augustus pas? Dit omdat BUFORA die het gehele onderzoek leidt er op de UFO-Conference in Augustus het eerst mee naar buiten zal komen, uiteraard worden de REELS eerst op echtheid gechecked. Ja Spielberg is een FILM aan het maken over ROSWELL, dit is voortgekomen uit de ROSWELL DECLARATION!, ook heeft hij contacten gehad met de BBC, om enkele fragmenten te mogen gebruiken, hier is nog niets zeker over te zeggen, of hij fragmenten krijgt, denk dat hij een dikke geldbuidel mee zal moeten nemen! groeten Jan, PS:Ben voorzichtig met voorspellen! --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 88 of 97 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 14 Apr 95 22:24:00 To : all Subj : Even over 5 Juni 1995, voor de duidelijkheid!!! ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Dit om te verduidelijken wat het GAO is en hoe het tot stand is gekomen. Leuk om te weten, maakt het allemaal spannender!! Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3101 The Honorable Les Aspin Secretary of Defense The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000 Dear Mr. Secretary: Last fall I became aware of a strange series of events beginning in New Mexico over 45 years ago and involving personnel of what was then the Army Air Force. I have since reviewed the facts in some detail, and I am writing to request your assistance in arriving at a definitive explanation of what transpired and why. In brief, according to contemporary newspaper, wire service, national radio newscast, and numerous eyewitness accounts, on or about July 3, 1947, rancher William W. (Mac) Brazel found a large amount of unusual debris on property he managed northwest of Roswell, New Mexico, near the town of Corona. He brought his find to the attention of Chaves County Sheriff George Wilcox, who then contacted the Roswell Army Air Field, home of the 509th Bomb Group (Atomic) commanded by Colonel William H. Blanchard (Who later became vice chief of staff of the Air Force). According to testimony of the group intelligence officer, Major Jesse A. Marcel, he and the Counter Intelligence Corps officer in charge at the field, Captain Sheridan, W. Cavitt, then accompanied Mr. Brazel to the discovery site. Marcel testified that he and Cavitt found an area measuring about three-quarters of a mile long by 200 to 300 feet wide densely strewn with large amount of extremely lightweight, extremely strong materials neither could identify. Samples of these materials were flown to Eighth Air Force Headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. On July 8, a press release announcing the find was issued by Colonel Blanchard's public information officer. This produced such a high level of press interest that, according to the Associated Press and a SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER front-page story of July 9, 1947, Army Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff Hoyt S. Vandenberg personally handled media enquiries at the Pentagon. ============================================================================ Page 2 -- Aspin A few hours later, Eighth Air Force Commanding General Roger M. Ramey told reporters in Fort Worth that what had been found in New Mexico were the initially misidentified remains of a weather balloon and its Rawin radar target. Recently, in written and videotaped depositions, Brigadier General Thomas J. DuBose, USAF(ret.), General Ramey's chief of staff at the time of the incident, testified that the balloon explanation was a cover story. Similarly documented testimony given by a number of still living and seemingly credible witnesses suggests that, in addition to the cover story, Federal authorities sought to intimidate witnesses and their families into silence. Those alleged to have been subjected to such intimidation include Brazel; his son Bill, who says that, more than two years later, military authorities confiscated bits of debris he had found and told him not to talk about the incident; Sheriff Wilcox and his wife Inez; Glen Dennis, a Roswell mortician who provided contract services to Roswell AAF; and the co-owners of Roswell radio station KGFL, one of whom has stated that he was told their broadcast license would be revoked if KGFL aired an interview with Brazel. It is my understanding that, to date, all inquiries to the Executive Branch have resulted in denials of any knowledge or record of this incident. Yet it is clear that something was recovered by the Army Air Force (see the enclosed), and if testimony of apparently honest witnesses is taken at face value, it seems likely to have been something other than a weather balloon and its radar target. Likewise, it is claimed that authorities took extraordinary measures on the matter, measures that would seem to have been unnecessary in connection with a routine balloon retrieval. The inconsistency between repeated official denials and the public record and testimony of those involved has led to a great deal of sensational speculation and called into question the credibility of the Departments of Defense, Army, and the Air Force. Moreover, the lives of several of my fellow New Mexicans and their families have been and continue to be disrupted as a result of the incident. I believe a full and honest review and reporting of the facts of the case would serve the interests of both the United States Government and affected citizens, and help put the matter to rest once and for all. ============================================================================ Page 3 -- Aspin Therefore, Mr. Secretary, I respectfully request that you direct such a review be undertaken on a priority basis and that a representative or representatives of the Department of Defense and the responsible Military Departments promptly arrange to brief and provide me with a written report providing a current, complete, and detailed description and explanation of both the nature of what was recovered and all official actions taken on the matter. I have asked Mary Martinek, my Legislative Director, to coordinate all activities concerning this request, and she can address any questions your staff may have. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely. /s/ Steven Schiff OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300 March 31, 1993 LEGISLATIVE In reply refer to: AFFAIRS OSD # 78897 Honorable Steven Schiff House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Schiff: I have received your letter of March 11, requesting information on alleged events which occurred in Roswell, New Mexico. In order to be of service to you, i have referred this matter to the national Archives and Records Administration for direct reply to you. If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, /s/ Larry G Shockley, Col, USAF Director, Plans and Operations Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3101 MEMORANDUM April 7, 1993 TO: Rudy deLeon Special Assistant Office of the Secretary of Defense FROM: Mary Martinek Legislative Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I an faxing to your attention a copy of the March 11th letter, with its attachments, which Congressman Schiff directed to Secretary Aspin. I enclose also, for your information, a copy of the acknowledgement received this date over the signature of Colonel Shockley. I appreciate your willingness to review the Congressman's request and look forward to the oral and written briefing he requested in his letter. groetjes jan, --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 89 of 97 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 14 Apr 95 22:27:00 To : all Subj : En hier komen de antwoorden, gewoon fantastisch!!! ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Dit zijn de replys die onze vrind Schiff heeft gekregen. Jean wist jij van deze meneer Schiff, ik zal ook recent materiaal posten, deze meneer is wel erg actief om de waarheid boven water te krijgen! OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301 THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT April 20, 1993 The Honorable Steve Schiff U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Schiff: This is in regard to your recent letter to Secretary Aspin regarding alleged events which occurred in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. I, too, find these unexplained occurrences of great interest; however, these records are too old to be available here at the Pentagon. I would, therefore, recommend that you contact the National Archives for additional information as I believe Colonel Shockley has already done on your behalf. I regret that my response in not more favorable, but I trust you will find this information helpful. Sincerely, /s/ Rudy de Leon Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3101 May 10, 1993 The Honorable Les Aspin Secretary Department of Defense Room 3e966 The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301 Dear Mr. Secretary: I am in receipt of two letters from members of your staff replying to my march 11, 1993, request for a personal briefing and a written report on a 1947 incident in New Mexico involving personnel of what was then the Army Air Force. Copies of my request with its attachments and your staff's replies are enclosed for your information. I realize that, after almost 46 years, it is a virtual certainty that all or most of the records concerning this incident have been archived. However, my staff and several independent investigators have conclusively established they are not in any of the unclassified, including previously classified, holdings of the National Archives. Moreover, it is my understanding that it is highly unlikely they reside in any of the classified files in the custody of the Archives. Given the above, it seems virtually certain the documents relating to this matter are located in the holdings under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or one or both of the relevant Military Departments. Just two examples of likely locations are the U.S. Army Intelligence Records Center at Fort Meade, Maryland, and Headquarters, U.S. Air Force Off ice of Special Investigations, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C. Wherever the documents may be, what is at issue is my request for a personal briefing and a written report on a matter involving actions taken by officials of the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force, agencies under your purview. I realize the research required to uncover the relevant documents and related materials will take time and considerable effort, and I am prepared to wait a reasonable amount of time for this to be accomplished. However I expect the job to be done and my request to be addressed as set forth in the penultimate paragraph of my March letter. Mw legislative Director, Mary Martinek, is coordinating all activities on the inquiry, and she can provide assistance or address any questions you and your staff may have. Mr. Secretary. I deeply appreciate your help on this matter and look forward to its timely resolution. Sincerely, /s/ Steven Schiff National Archives Washington, DC 20408 May 20 1993 The Honorable Steve Schiff House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-3101 Dear Mr. Schiff: This is in reply to your letter of March 11, 1993, concerning information about a UFO sighting at Roswell, new Mexico, in 1947. The Department of the Air Force forwarded your letter, and we received it on May 6, 1993. The U.S. Air Force has retired to our custody its records on Project BLUE BOOK relating to the investigations of unidentified flying objects. Project BLUE BOOK has been declassified and the records are available for examination in our research room. The project closed in 1969 and we have no information after that date. We have received numerous requests concerning records relating to the Roswell incident among these records. We have not located any documentation relating to this event in Project BLUE BOOK records, or in any other pertinent Defense Department records in our custody. Sincerely, /s/ R. MICHAEL MCREYNOLDS Director Textual Reference Division Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3101 May 10, 1993 The Honorable Les Aspin Secretary Department of Defense Room 3e966 The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301 Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to you, again, to request an answer to my letter to you of May 10th. I enclose a copy of the letter, and previous correspondence on the same issue, for your information. While I realize that the Department of Defense, and you, Mr. Secretary, have been very busy in areas throughout the world, while also concerned with proposed changes in policy within the Department, I must insist on the courtesy of a reply to my letter, which is now three months old. _To reiterate, while I am prepared to wait a reasonable_ _length of time for the briefing I requested, I do insist that the_ _Department do the research on my inquiry and report the findings_ _to me._ I also must insist on having my letters to the Department of Defense acknowledged and acted upon. I look forward to your response to my letters, and to the scheduled briefing. I will expect a reply to this inquiry by September 7th. Sincerely, /s/ Steven Schiff grtx, jan Ruth --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 90 of 97 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 14 Apr 95 22:28:00 To : all Subj : Nu gaat het over in GAO!!!, wat een kerel he!!!! ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Washington Post 1/14/94 GAO Turns To Alien Turf In New Probe By William Claiborne Washington Post Staff Writer Where television's "Unsolved Mysteries" has tried and failed, the General Accounting Office is unafraid to venture. At the request of Rep. Steven Schiff (R-N.M.), Congress's investigative branch has launched a study to determine whether the government covered up a story alleging that the bodies of alien space voyagers were removed from a crashed flying saucer found near Roswell, N.M., in 1947. After the purported crash of the spacecraft, the bodies of the extraterrestrial visitors were said by a local undertaker and other conspiracy theorists to have been autopsied and secretly flown to an Air Force base in Ohio. Even though the "Roswell Incident" has been repeatedly dismissed by the Defense Department as nothing more than UFO fantasizing triggered by the discovery of a downed weather balloon, the GAO has begun searching for documents to prove allegations that the Air Force "suppressed" information sought by Schiff. Schiff is a member of the House Government Operations Committee, which oversees the GAO. GAO spokeswoman Laura A. Kopelson said the office's investigation, first reported in the Albuquerque Journal yesterday, stemmed from a meeting in October between Schiff and GAO Controller General Charles A Bowsher. Schiff complained then that the Defense Department had been "unresponsive" to his inquiries about the 1947 incident. Kopelson said "as far as I know only one investigator had been assigned" to the case, and that not enough work had been done to report any results to Schiff. At another point, Kopelson said "the people doing it are either on sick leave or are unavailable." She said there was no way of estimating how much the investigation would cost, and that the GAO does not release such information anyway. GAO conducted 1,380 inquiries into government operations in 1992. Its budget has risen from $46.9 million in 1965 to $490 million last year. The agency has been criticized, especially by Republicans, as the "lap dog of the requesters," producing reports that tend to support whatever conclusion the requesting member of Congress suggests. Kopelson said Schiff had asked the GAO "to see if there is any evidence that information regarding UFOs had been suppressed" following the Roswell incident. Schiff, however, said that at a routine October meeting he had merely complained about the Defense Department's lack of responsiveness but a GAO official said, "We're willing to take a stab at it." Schiff, in a telephone interview from Albuquerque, said that last March, after receiving inquiries from "UFO believers" and some Roswell residents who were in the military in 1947, he wrote Defense Secretary Les Aspin asking for more information about the reported spacecraft crash and the alleged disappearance of the aliens' bodies. The crash of a mysterous object 75 miles northwest of Roswell, which the Air Force later claimed was a weather balloon equipped with a radar-reflecting device, was the subject of several books and remains many UFO buffs' greatest riddle. A privately owned museum in Roswell contains a number of documents and photographs purporting to prove existence of the aliens. It also displays a re-creation of the spacecraft surrounded by figures portraying the dead extraterrestrials. UFO buffs contend the incident marked the beginning of a government conspiracy to suppress evidence of alien life. Much of the speculation stems from claims by William Haut, a former Air Force public affairs officer, who said that on July 2, 1947, he was told to prepare a news release reporting the Air Force had recovered parts of a flying saucer and then was told to change the story to report a weather balloon. Also, a nurse reportedly told a local funeral home director that she witnessed the autopsies of the spacemen, whom she described as having oversized heads and beetle-like features. The nurse subsequently died in a plane crash. After the autopsies, conspiracy theorists said the bodies were flown to Fort Worth and then to what is now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. In 1989, NBC's "Unsolved Mysteries" investigated the controversy, which the program's host, Robert Stack, concluded remained unsolved. Schiff said after calling Aspin last March to request a Defense Department briefing on the Roswell incident, he received a call from an Air Force lieutenant colonel, who brusquely told him the documents had been turned over to the National Archives. However, Schiff said, Archives officials told him they did not have the records on Roswell, even though they did have records of "Project Blue Book," a 1969 Air Force study of reported UFO sightings. That study, Schiff said, did not deal with the Roswell case. "I was getting pretty upset at all the running around," Schiff said, adding that at his meeting with GAO officials, "they made an offer to help." "Generally, I'm a skeptic on UFOs and alien beings, but there are indications from the runaround that I got that whatever it was, it wasn't a balloon. Apparently, it's another government coverup," Schiff said. He called the Defense Department's lack of response "astounding," and said government accountability was an issue "even larger than UFOs." Asked if the GAO might not be extending itself, Schiff acknowledged that the agency "usually does fiscal investigations and at present I can't find a fiscal impact" in the Roswell incident. Had the agency said, " `This is beyond our realm of expertise,' " Schiff said, "I wouldn't insist on it." He added, "If the Defense Department had been responsive, it wouldn't have come to this." January 14, 1994 Los Angeles television Fox 11 news/reporter David Garcia interviewed New Mexico congressman Steve Schiff. Congressman Schiff stated that this incident, like the radiation tests in the 40's should be brought forth and dealt honestly with the American people. Another LA TV station ran a short interview with Frank Joyce, at the time a radio personality in Roswell, now retired living in Albuquerque. He described his initial involvement, how he heard from Mac Brazel and how he suggested Brazel call the Army Air Field, and how he later got the press release and everyone's reaction to it. Radio stations in Albuquerque report that Congressman Steve Schiff is and has been looking into the Roswell incident. According to the report, he's angry that the Department of Defense stonewalled him. In response, Schiff has gone to what the report called "the investigative arm of Congress: the General Accounting Office," and requested an investigation into whether there was a cover-up in 1947, what was covered up, and why it's still being kept secret. An AP wire article also dealt with the Roswell story. CBS radio aired news that a congressman from New Mexico (Steve Schiff), because of some letters from his constituents, is requesting that the General Accounting Office investigate the Roswell Incident. groetjes janneman, PS: Jean dit bedoelde je toch met 5 juni , toch!!!!! --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 102 of 145 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 15 Apr 95 06:57:00 To : Rick Speelman Subj : Re: Re^2: Artilel uit het NRC Handelsdagblad ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ -=> Quoting Rick Speelman to Jean Van Gemert <=- JVG> In juni wordt het onderzoeksrapport van het GAO gepresenteert JVG> aan het congres. het GAO moest onderzoeken of er inderdaad een JVG> cover-up (roswell) heeft plaatsgevonden. Naar wat ik gelezen heb JVG> kan dit rapport al wat opschudding teweeg brengen. RS> Wat is GAO ? En kan die ook niet gewoon een onderdeel van de coverup RS> zijn ? We zullen zien. GAO staat voor: General Accounting Office Deze instantie is gespecialiseerd in het opsporen van "black budgets" en de documenten die hier naar wijzen. Zoals je ziet is het onderzoeken van een cover-up NIET hun specialiteit. In ieder geval is dit de enige instantie die zoiets kan ondernemen. Dit gebeurt trouwens op last van congreslid S. Shiff die ervan overtuigt dat er bij Roswell iets vreemds is neergestort. Hij wil dan ook koste wat kost de waarheid te weten komen. Als het goed is zal de conclusie van het GAO al wat opschudding kunnen veroorzaken als dit rapport in Juni aan het congres wordt gepresenteerd. kans is dat er openbare onderzoeken worden gehouden en dat de hele cover-up voor onze ogen wordt opgerolt. Ik ben benieuwd, want als het GAO concludeerd dat er inderdaad een cover-up is dan wil ik wel de reactie van de luchtmacht zien.... JVG> Je kunt ook niet alles weten......:-) RS> Maar goed ook:-) Soms wel, soms niet. Groeten Jean ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 841 of 861 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 25 Apr 95 19:11:04 To : All 28 Apr 95 01:56:22 Subj : Roswell film: Truman ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by stephenh * Originally to All * Originally dated 22 Apr 1995, 14:11 From: stephenh@netcom.com (stephenh) Date: 20 Apr 95 21:11:24 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Many accounts of the Reg Presley "Roswell Film" mention the filmed presence of then-Pres. Harry Truman at the field autopsy site. According to the the most recent information I have on the Roswell crash ("The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell, 1994, Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt, M. Evans and Co., New York, pp. 3-10), the autopsy at the crash site should have happened on Saturday, July 5, 1947. Two photographers on the site had come from Washington on the flight with Thomas. Neither was on the special 9-man team, but they were given full access tothe impact site so that they coud record the scene before verything was moved out. According to Easley, "One was a tech sergeant and the other a master sergeant... [They were] real pros [who] knew their business. They came out with Thomas... [They] took stills and they took movies of the area." (p. 10) According to Truman's appointment calendar, Truman gave a speech at Monticello, Virginia on Friday, July 4, 1947. He had lunch at the Collonade Club in that area. On Saturday, July 5, 1947, according to the calendar, Truman spent the day at the estate of Mr. Stanley Woodward, then U.S. ambassador to Canada, in Charlottesville, Virginia. At 9:45 AM, he took a stroll in the estate grounds with General Laver (sp.?) and Admiral Falatte (sp.?). Secretary (of State?) Snyder, who had resided at the estate overnight as a house guest, departed in the morning for Washington, DC. No other entries exist for July 5, 1947. On Sunday, July 6, 1947, the President departed in a motorcade for Washington, DC. The trip was said to be noted by the New York Times at the time. The next weekend went roughly as follows: Friday, July 11, 1947: cabinet meeting, followed by a meeting with the assistant secretary of the Treasury. Saturday, July 12, 1947: 10:15-5:45 entertained at the residence of the Postmaster General. Sunday, July 13, 1947: no appointments (presumably at the White House). I have no information on whether Truman spent any time in Houston around this time frame, as had been hinted at in other recent postings on the net. During calendar year 1947, there is no official record of Truman having visited New Mexico at any time for any purpose. Conclusion. The evidence is somewhat inconclusive. Truman may have been at Ambassador Woodward's residence in Virginia on the date in which the crash site was filmed, but there is no evidence that he was in the public eye during that day, and in theory the stay at the Ambassador's residence could have been manufactured as a cover story to hide an airplane trip to Roswell. However, there is as of yet no public evidence that Truman went to Roswell in July 1947 to view the autopsy site. More research may be useful, particularly into the Truman Administration personnel (valet, etc.) and the other individuals named (Amb. Woodward, Gen. Laver, Adm. Falatte) who might conceivably still be alive who can testify as to whether or not Truman actually remained at the residence in Virginia on Saturday, July 5, 1947. Comments and other information welcome. --s. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 842 of 861 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 25 Apr 95 19:11:06 To : All 28 Apr 95 01:56:24 Subj : Roswell film: Truman ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by stephenh * Originally to All * Originally dated 22 Apr 1995, 22:43 From: stephenh@netcom.com (stephenh) Date: 21 Apr 95 08:53:45 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo sb09297@nyssa.swt.edu wrote: : what kind of airports were available to fly Truman out of Charlottesville? : how long would the flight be? narrow down how much time he had to make this : trip and see if it is possible. : what about newspaper clippings from that small town in VA, any pictures? : what's the closest military base? Monticello, where Truman gave his speech July 4, is right outside (SE ~1 mi.) of Charlottesville. There is one airport near Charlottesville. The name might be the Charlottesville-Albermarle Airport. The airport is about 4 miles NNE of Charlottesville on US highway 29. The location is from a 1982 map. The next nearest airport appears to be in the Washington, DC area. My recollection is that the fastest fighters of the time (jets) were not very reliable (the Nazi jets were more stable, and even they were not easy to fly). The fastest prop was probably still the P51, which had a speed of ~400 mph. But I think it somewhat unlikely that Truman would fly in such a plane. More likely he would have flown in a transport such as a DC-3, or a possibly a bomber such as a B-17 (see the movie "The Best Years of Our Lives" made in 1946 for a typical trip of this type in a military aircraft). These planes have speeds in the range of 150 mph to 250 mph (very rough). For calculations, let's say 200 mph. If the distance to Roswell is about 1500 mi., that's 7.5 hours, which I believe would just be possible with some planes without refueling. The prevailing winds blow from west to east, which would slow the plane down somewhat going west, and speed it up going east, but not by a large amount either way. Conceivably, a refueling stop might be made necessary depending on the type of plane used and the wind conditions. However, a transfer to a different waiting aircraft could be arranged in transit (and probably was, since time would have been precious). Allow about one hour time delay for the prevailing winds. The alleged UFO crash allegedly occured at about 11:27 PM Roswell time, according to "The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell", by Randle and Schmitt. That's Mountain Standard Time according to my map. It would be 1:27 AM Eastern time. Assume it took Truman one hour to get to the airport outside Charlottesville, and one hour to get to the Roswell crash site from the Roswell AAFB. Truman could arrive at the Roswell crash site at about 2:00 PM Mountain Time. So Truman could conceivably fly into Roswell overnight, and be there in the mid or late afternoon. If he took a faster plane, such as a 2-seater P-51, the time could be moved up considerably, possibly to about 11:30 AM Mountain Time. According to "The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell", the aliens were transported to Roswell AAFB in the late afternoon or early evening of July 5. On skimming the book, I was unable to find more precise times. It's late here and the figures need review, as I am not an airplane pilot. However, a relative of mine is, and was, during that period, so I'll try to get the figures reviewed and if there are any corrections I'll try to post them later. Conclusion: The timing is rather tight, but it does not seem to be impossible for Truman to have been at Roswell in the afternoon of July 5, 1947, given the transportation technology of the time period. --s. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 1028 of 1037 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 29 Apr 95 03:20:00 To : All 01 May 95 01:44:34 Subj : Roswell - The Facts, Truth and Eyewitness Accounts ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by WRIGHT ADAM * Originally to All * Originally dated 22 Apr 1995, 22:44 From: aw38@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au (WRIGHT ADAM) Date: 21 Apr 95 03:14:55 GMT Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia. Message-ID: <3n77vf$pnu@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au> Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo Regarding all the speculation lately of the Roswell film release in August of the crash site and President Truman walking through the debris etc etc, I have typed the transcript of the actual events surrounding the Roswell incident for those people among us who don't really know what happened, or those who are after the facts surrounding the incident - not the rumours. I decided to post this because a guy named Alastair Carter requested the information and it took me a while to type it so I thought alot of other people might benefit from this posting as well. Anyway here it is. The facts, not the story (this viewpoint is quite skeptic actually. It takes into account all of the possibilities) : One of the most contentious aspects of the UFO enigma is the allegation that a number of flying saucers have actually crash-landed and been recovered by the military in great secrecy. The claim has been generally dismissed for lack of proof, yet the evidence is compelling. Former US Air Force intelligence officer Leonard Stringfield, for example, has now collected at least forty such accounts, some of them from first-hand witnesses. One incident that now seems indisputable - in the sense that anomalous wreckage was recovered - occurred within a few days of the United Airlines sighting, and has been the subject of one of the most thoroughly documented investigations on record. On the evening of 2 July 1947 a bright, disc-shaped object was seen flying over Roswell, New Mexico, heading north-west. The following day widely scattered wreckage was discovered about seventy-five miles north-west of Roswell by a local ranch manager, William Brazel, together with his son and daughter. The authorities were eventually alerted and a qunatity of wreckage was recovered by Major Jesse Marcel, a staff intelligence officer of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office at the Army Air Forces base at Roswell Field, together with a Counter-Intelligence Corps officer. Once the officers had returned to the Roswell base, an official press statement was released, authorised by Colonel William Blanchard, confirming that the wreckage of a flying disc had been recovered. Marcel was ordered to load the debris on a B-29 and fly it to Wright field (now Wright-Patterson AFB) at Dayton, Ohio, for examination. On arrival at an intermediate stop at Carswell Army Air Forces Base, Fort Worth, Texas (headquarters of the Eight Air Force), General Roger Ramey took charge and ordered Marcel and others on the plane not to talk to reporters. A second press statement was issued which stated that the wreckage was nothing more than the remains of a weather balloon and it's attached tinfoil radar target, and this was prominently displayed at the press conference. Meanwhile, the _real_ wreckage arrived at Wright Field under armed guard; Marcel returned to Roswell, and Brazel was held incommunicado for nearly a week while the crash site was stripped of every scrap of debris. A news leak via press wire from Albuquerque describing this fantastic story was interrupted and the radio station in question, and another, were warned not to continue the broadcast: 'ATTENTION ALBUQUERQUE: CEASE TRANSMISSION. REPEAT. CEASE TRANSMISSION. NATIONAL SECURITY ITEM. DO NOT TRANSMIT. STAND BY....' The unidentified wreckage, scattered over an area three-quarters of a mile long by several hundred feet wide, consisted of various types of material, which according to Major Marcel was like nothing he had seen before or since: "There was all kinds of stuff - small beams about three eights or a half inch square with some sort of hieroglyphics on them that nobody could decipher. These looked something like balsa wood, and were of about the same weight, except that they were of about the same weight, except that they were not wood at all. They were very hard, although flexible, and would not burn. There was a great deal of unusual parchment-like substance which was brown in color and extremely strong, and a great number of small pieces of a metal like tinfoil, except that it wasn't tinfoil." Marcel added that one piece of metal foil, two feet long and a foot wide, was so durable that it could not be dented with a sledgehammer, despite its being incredibly light. Marcel was absolutely convinced that the material had nothing to do with a weather balloon or a radar target. His testimony cannot be dismissed, owing to his background in aviation: he had served as a bombardier, waist-gunner and pilot, had logged 468 hours of combat flying in B-24 aircraft, and was awarded five air medals for shooting down enemy aircraft in World War II. Towards the end of the war he was attached to 509th Bomb Wing, an elite military group for which all those involved required high-security clearances. Following the Roswell incident he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and assigned to a Special Weapons Program that specialised in analysing air samples to discover if the Russians had detonated their first nuclear bomb. Marcel was quite certain that no bodies were among the debris, and that whatever the object was it must have exploded above ground level. But the evidence suggests that there was _another_ crash site, in an area west of Socorro, New Mexico, known as the Plains of San Agustin, where witnesses discovered not only a damaged metallic 'craft' resting on the flat desert ground, but also dead bodies. The first witness on the scene was Grady L. 'Braney' Barnett, a civil engineer with the US Soil Conservation Service who was on a military assignment at the time. He told some friends that in July 1947 he had encountered a metallic, disc-shaped 'aircraft' about twenty-five or thirty feet in diameter. While he was examining it, a small group of people arrived who said they were part of an archaeological research team from the University of Pennsylvania. Barnett recalled : "I noticed that they were standing around looking at some dead bodies that had fallen to the ground. I think there were others in the machine, which was a kind of metallic...disc. It was not all that big. It seemed to be made of metal that looked like dirty stainless steel. The machine had been split open by explosion or impact." "I tried to get close to see what the bodies were like. They were all dead as far as I could see and there were bodies inside and outside the vehicle. The ones outside had been tossed out by the impact. They were like humans but they were not humans. The heads were round, the eyes were small, and they had no hair. The eyes were oddly spaced. They were quite small by our standards and their heads were larger in proportion to their bodies than ours. Their clothing seemed to be one-piece and grey in colour. You couldn't see any zippers, belts or buttons. They seemed to be all males and there were a number of them. I as close enough to touch them but I didn't - I was escorted away before I could [do so]." "While we were looking at them a military officer drove up in a truck with a driver and took control. He told everybody that the Army was taking over and to get out of the way. Other military personnel cam up and cordoned of the area. We were told to leave the area and not to talk to anyone whatever about what we had seen...that it was out patriotic duty to remain silent." Regrettably, this account cannot be regarded as reliable since it was related to friends of the witness in 1950: Barnett died in 1969 and the authors of _The Roswell Incident_ a book which examines the evidence then available, were therefore unable to interview him. But those who knew 'Barney' Barnett described him as the very model of a respectable and honest citizen - hardly likely to invent such a fantastic tale. Members of the University of Pennsylvania team have yet to come forward or be located, although William Moore has established the the University _was_ involved in archaeological digs in the area at that time. It is not known for certain if the craft and occupants allegedly witnessed by Barnett were connected with the Roswell Wreckage. The Plains of San Agustin, near Magdalena, New Mexico, are about 150 miles west of Brazel's ranch site. Was the wreckage recovered there part of the same craft that had somehow managed to remain airborne for that distance before crashing on the Plains, or was it another craft that had also come to grief? We may never know the full story, but Bill Moore, in one of his updated research papers on the Roswell incident, concludes that while there is insufficient evidence to substantiate Barnett's story or to justify linking it with the _proven_ recovery of anomalous wreckage at Brazel's ranch site, this is no reason to dismiss the account out of hand. there is also the intriguing hypothesis that the first press release, announcing the recovery of a crashed disc, was a counter-intelligence ploy to deflect attention from the craft and bodies bear Magdalena. If so, it worked. Leading investigators Bill Moore and Stanton Friedman (the latter a nuclear physicist as well as a UFO researcher) have interviewed no less than ninety-two witnesses who provide information about this sensational incident, of who thirty were involved with the discovery, recovery or subsequent official cover-up, and ten of the original witnesses have identified the object as non-terrestrial in origin. This is the exact transcript from what I have from Timothy Good's book - Above Top Secret. It also goes on to say the the Majestic Twelve documents contain the quote "_the remains of four alien bodies were recovered two miles from the Roswell wreckage site_." Please feel free to e-mail me at aw38@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au if you want more info on the MJ-12 documents or any other UFO related topic. Hope I've elightened some people to the event. Cheers, Richard Dean aw38@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 824 of 859 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 02 May 95 18:30:06 To : All 05 May 95 01:55:00 Subj : Alleged Roswell Video ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by John Stepkowski * Originally to All * Originally dated 29 Apr 1995, 19:49 From: legion@WERPLE.MIRA.NET.AU (John Stepkowski) Date: 26 Apr 95 21:25:18 GMT Message-ID: <199504262125.HAA02652@werple03.mira.net.au> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo (Apologies if this is a dupe: server problems) Hello Bill.. * In alt.paranet.ufo, Bill Chalker , writes: > Attached is a report I have prepared which may be of interest: > Re: Alleged Roswell video. > As there seems to be some hysteria developing about this material and > there has been significant inaccuracies creeping into many of the media > reports, I thought it appropriate to conveye some of the information I > have learnt about this affair. Excellent post! > Back on April 1st, I spoke with Philip Mantle, the Director of > Investigations for BUFORA, who has been the main source quoted in most > of the media stories. [...] > Philip remarked to me that it could easily be a model on the bed or > bench. The particular sequence he saw could easily be replicated, with > Mantle saying to me, "I could do it in our own garden, if I wanted to." It's curious to note how cautious Mr Mantle was in endorsing this footage when he spoke with you on April 1st, and how positive he seemed of its authenticity in an article he wrote for _The Independant_ on March 29. Interesting contrast... - John ================================ >From _THE INDEPENDENT_ - London, March 29, 1995 ''You have scoffed at all those stories of flying saucers. Yet the Director of Investigations at the UFO Research Association has a film which he believes will open your eyes and change your mind'' Dear UFO Disbeliever For years now you have heaped scorn and ridicule on our belief that there are such things as Unidentified Flying Objects. The time is fast approaching for me to say, "I told you so", and for you to eat your words. A film has arrived from North America which is the Holy Shroud of the UFO movement. It is the closest we have yet come to proving not only that UFOs are plying our skies but also that aliens have landed on earth. The film was taken in the summer of 1947 in a place called Roswell, New Mexico. It was taken by a military film cameraman who was flown to the desert from Washington DC to film the crash of a UFO. There are 14 canisters of 16mm film of the incident. I have only seen a fragment. That shows a scene which at the very least is enigmatic and intriguing. It is grainy black and white. There is no sound. It shows a scene in the desert. Two men in white coats are working, taking samples and inspecting something on a bench. That thing is the inhabitant of a crashed spacecraft. The alien is humanoid, of slight build and average height. It has no hair, eyes, nose or ears but it does have large, dark eyes. The men in white coats are taking samples and inspecting the humanoid. Behind them stands a man in a dark suit, who looks as though he is a military officer. The implications of this film are far-reaching. First, it is the best proof we have yet obtained that an alien spacecraft did crash that summer in 1947. The Roswell case is legendary. We have more than 300 witnesses to the incident. Now we have this detailed film and the cameraman, who went on to a distinguished career in the private sector, is prepared to go on the record in public to explain what he saw. Second, the film also implies there has been a massive and prolonged government cover-up of this, and possibly other incidents. The US military has known for decades that UFOs have landed on earth but poured cold water on all our theories. Evidence that we are being constantly visited by UFOs has been mounting with eye-witness accounts, still photographs and scraps of video. This film from Roswell is the icing on the cake. It is no coincidence that the X Files has become a cult television series. If you want to see the film, come along to the 8th International UFO Congress in Sheffield on 19 and 20 August. There will be a panel of academics and specialists from Africa, America, Spain and Denmark to outline new evidence and theories of UFO sightings. You might just be persuaded that we are not alone in the universe and that UFO researchers such as myself have not been wasting our time for the past 50 years. - Philip Mantle *E-O-F* *-------------------------------* |...............................| |.. legion@werple.mira.net.au ..| |...............................| *-------------------------------* --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 69 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:33:00 To : ALL Subj : De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel1 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAF/PAM PENTAGON No. 235-M Sept. 8, 1994 Secretary of the Air Force Sheila E. Widnall today announced the completion of an Air Force study to locate records that would explain an alleged 1947 UFO incident. Pro-UFO researchers claim an extraterrestrial spacecraft and its alien occupants were recovered near Roswell, N.M., in July 1947 and the fact was kept from the public. At the request of Congressman Steven H. Schiff (R-NM), the General Accounting Office in February 1994 initiated an audit to locate all records related to the Roswell incident and to determine if such records were properly handled. The GAO audit entitled "Records Management Procedures Dealing With Weather Balloon, Unknown Aircraft, and Similar Crash Incidents* is not yet complete. The GAO audit involved a number of government agencies but focused on the Air Force. In support of the GAO effort, the Air Force initiated a systematic search of current Air Force offices as well as numerous archives and records centers that might help explain the incident. Air Force officials also interviewed a number of persons who might have had knowledge of the events. Prior to the interviews, Secretary Widnall released those persons from any previous security obligations that might have restricted their statements. The Air Force research did not locate or develop any information that the "Roswell Incident" was a UFO event nor was there any indication of a "cover-up" by the Air Force. Information obtained through exhaustive records searches and interviews indicated the material recovered near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device of the type used in a then classified project. No records indicated or even hinted at the recovery of "alien" bodies or extraterrestrial materials. All documentation related to this case is now declassified and the information is in the public domain. All documentation has been turned over to the Air Force Historian. The Air Force report without attachments may be obtained by contacting Major Thurston, Air Force Public Affairs, (703) 695-0640. The report with all 33 attachments is available for review in the Pentagon Library in Room 1A518. groetjes Jan, --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 71 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:34:00 To : ALL Subj : De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Rosswell Deel 3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ INTRODUCTION Air Force involvement in the alleged UFO-related incident popularly known as the "Roswell Incident" began as the result of a January 14, 1994, Washington Post article (Atch 1) which announced Congressman Steven Schiff's intent to initiate a General Accounting Office (GAO) effort to resolve this controversial matter. Having previously been involved in numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Congressional requests on "unusual aircraft," to include Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), The Director, Security and Special Program Oversight, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, (SAF/AAZ) believed the Air Force would become involved in any GAO effort involving this subject. Thus, in late January, 1994, SAF/AAZ directed its research/ declassification to SAF/AAZD, to attempt to locate any official records relative to this matter. These initial research efforts focused on records at the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA), Maxwell AFB, AL, the Air Force Safety Agency (AFSA) at Kirtland AFB, NM and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). On February 15, 1994, the GAO officially notified Secretary of Defense William J. Perry that, it was initiating an audit of the Department of Defense (DoD) policies and procedures for acquiring, classifying, retaining, and disposing of official government documents dealing with weather balloon, aircraft, and similar crash incidents (Atch 2). This notification was subsequently passed to the Department of Defense Inspector General who in turn officially notified the Secretaries of the Services and other affected parties of the audit in a February 23, 1994, memo (Atch 3). This memorandum indicated that the "GAO is anxious to respond to Representative Schiff's request and to dispel any concerns that the DoD is being unresponsive." These were the first official US Government documents that indicated that the purpose of the GAO was to review "crash incidents involving weather balloons and unknown aircraft, such as UFOs and foreign aircraft, and (2) the facts involving the reported crash of an UFO in 1949 (sic, 1947) at Roswell, New Mexico ... (and an) alleged DoD cover-up." An entrance meeting of potentially concerned parties was held in the offices of the DoD Inspector General on February 28, 1994. During this meeting it was learned that, while the audit officially would be reviewing the records of a number of DoD (and possibly other Executive Branch entities), the bulk of the effort would be focused on Air Force records and systems. The audit was officially given the GAO code 701034, and entitled "Records Management Procedures Dealing With Weather Balloon, Unknown Aircraft, and Similar Crash Incidents." Although this official title appeared rather broad, there was no misunderstanding that the real purpose was to attempt to locate records and/or information on the "Roswell Incident." This incident, explained later in more detail, generally dealt with the claim that in July of 1947, the US Army Air Forces (USAAF) recovered a flying saucer and/or its alien occupants which supposedly crashed near Roswell, New Mexico. When the USAAF ultimately became the United States Air Force (USAF) in September, 1947, the USAF inherited equipment, personnel, records, policies, and procedures from the AAF. In this particular case, the Air Force also inherited the allegation that it had "covered up" the "Roswell Incident" and has continued to do so for the next 47 years. Within the Air Force, the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/AA) is responsible both for information management procedures (SAF/AAI) and security policy and oversight (SAF/AAZ). Because of this organization, SAF/AA was the logical entity to assist the GAO in its audit and SAF/AAZ was officially named as the Central Point of Contact for this endeavor (Atch 4). Subsequently, the then Administrative Assistant, W. Robert J. McCormick, issued a tasking memorandum dated March 1, 1994 (Atch 5), to a number of current Air Staff and Secretariat offices that might possibly have records related to such an incident it indeed, something had actually occurred. This search for records was purposely limited to Air Force records and systems since: (a) The Air Force had no authority to compel other agencies to review their records; (b) The Air Force would have no way to monitor the completeness of their efforts if they did; and (c) the overall effort was the task and responsibility of the GAO-not the Air Force. During the in-briefing process with GAO, it was learned that this audit was, indeed, generated at the specific request of Congressman Steven Schiff of New Mexico. Earlier, Congressman Schiff had written to the Department of Defense Legislative Liaison Office for information on the "Roswell Incident" and had been advised that it was part of the former UFO "Project Bluebook" that had previously been turned over to NARA by the Air Force. Congressman Schiff subsequently learned from NARA that, although they did, indeed, have the "Bluebook" materials, the "Roswell Incident" was not part of that report. Congressman Schiff, apparently perceiving that he had been "Stonewalled" by the DoD, then generated the request for the aforementioned audit. It is within this context that the following research and assistance efforts were conducted in support of the GAO. This report is intended to stand as the final official Air Force response regarding this matter. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 72 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:34:00 To : ALL Subj : De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel 4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ THE "ROSWELL INCIDENT" - WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY REPORTED IN 1947 The modern preoccupation with what ultimately came to be called Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) actually began in June, 1947. Although some pro-UFO researchers argue that sightings of UFOs go back to Biblical times, most researchers will not dispute that anything in UFO history can compare with the phenomenon that began in 1947. What was later characterized as "the UFO Wave of 1947' began with 16 alleged sightings that occurred between May 17 and July 12, 1947, (although some researchers claim there were as many as 800 sightings during that period). Interestingly, the "Roswell Incident" was not considered one of these 1947 events until the 1978-1980 time frame. There is no dispute, however, that something happened near Roswell in July, 1947, since it was reported in a number of contemporary newspaper articles; the most famous of which were the July 8 and July 9 editions of the Roswell Daily Record. The July edition reported "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch In Roswell Region," while the next day's edition reported, "Ramey Empties Roswell Saucer" and "Harassed Rancher Who Located 'Saucer' Sorry He Told About It." The first story reported that the Intelligence Officer of the 509th Bomb Group, stationed at Roswell AAF, Major Jesse A. Marcel, had recovered a "flying disc" from the range 4 lands of an unidentified rancher in the vicinity of Roswell and that the disc had been "flown to higher headquarters." That same story also reported that a Roswell couple claimed to have seen a large unidentified object fly by their home on July 2, 1947. The July 9 edition of the paper noted that Brigadier General Roger Ramey, Commander of the Eighth Air Force at Forth Worth, Texas, stated that upon examination the debris recovered by Marcel was determined to be a weather balloon. The wreckage was described as a "...bundle of tinfoil, broken wood beams, and rubber remnants of a balloon...." The additional story of the "harassed rancher' identified him as W.W. Brazel of Lincoln County, New Mexico. He claimed that he and his son, Vernon, found the material on June 14, 1947, when they "came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper, and sticks." He picked up some of the debris on July 4 and ."..the next day he first heard about the flying discs and wondered if what he had found might have been the remnants of one of these." Brazel subsequently went to Roswell on July 7 and contacted the Sheriff, who apparently notified Major Marcel. Major Marcel and "a man in plain clothes" then accompanied Brazel home to pick up the rest of the pieces. The article further related that Brazel thought that the material: ."..might have been as large as a table top. The balloon which held it up, if that is how it worked, must have been about 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the distance by the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter. When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds. There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind. Although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil. There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument although there were letters on some of the parts. Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction. No string or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used. Brazel said that he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these." --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 73 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:35:00 To : ALL Subj : De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel 5 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ EVOLUTION OF THE EVENT FROM 1947 TO THE PRESENT General Ramey's press conference and rancher Brazel's statement effectively ended this as a UFO-related matter until 1978, although some UFO researchers argue that there were several obtuse references to it in 1950's era literature. Roswell, for example, is not referred to in the official USAF investigation of UFOs reported in Project Bluebook or its predecessors, Project Sign and Project Grudge, which ran from 1948-1969 (which Congressman Schiff subsequently learned when he made his original inquiry). In 1978, an article appeared in a tabloid newspaper, the National Inquirer, which reported the former intelligence officer, Marcel, claimed that he had recovered UFO debris near Roswell in 1947. Also in 1978, a UFO researcher, Stanton Friedman, met with Marcel and began investigating the claims that the material Marcel handled was from a crashed UFO. Similarly, two authors, William L. Moore and Charles Berlitz, also engaged in research which led them to publish a book, The Roswell Incident, in 1980. In this book they reported they interviewed a number of persons who claimed to have been present at Roswell in 1947 and professed to be either first or second hand witnesses to strange events that supposedly occurred. Since 1978-1980, other UFO researchers, most notably Donald Schmitt and Kevin Randle, claim to have located and interviewed even more persons with supposed knowledge of unusual happenings at Roswell. These included both civilian and former military persons. Additionally, the Robert Stack-hosted television show "Unsolved Mysteries' devoted a large portion of one show to a "re-creation" of the supposed Roswell events. Numerous other television shows have done likewise, particularly during the last several years and a made-for-TV movie on the subject is due to be released this summer. The overall thrust of these articles, books and shows is that the "Roswell Incident" was actually the crash of a craft from another world, the US Government recovered it, and has been "covering up" this fact from the American public since 1947, using a combination of disinformation, ridicule, and threats of bodily harm to do so. Generally, the US Air Force bears the brunt of these accusations. From the rather benign description of the "event" and the recovery of some material as described in the original newspaper accounts, the "Roswell Incident" has since grown to mythical (if not mystical) proportions in the eyes and minds of some researchers, portions of the media and at least part of the American public. There are also now several major variations of the "Roswell story." For example, it was originally reported that there was only recovery of debris from one site. This has since grown from a minimal amount of debris recovered from a small area to airplane loads of debris from multiple huge "debris fields." Likewise, the relatively simple description of sticks, paper, tape and tinfoil has since grown to exotic metals with hieroglyphics and fiber optic-like materials. Most versions now claim that there were two crash sites where debris was recovered; and at the second site, alleged bodies of extraterrestrial aliens were supposedly retrieved. The number of these "alien bodies' recovered also varied. These claims are further complicated by the fact that UFO researchers are not in agreement among themselves as to exactly where these recovery sites were located or even the dates of the alleged crash(es). Consistently, however, the AAF was accused of securing these Sites, recovering all the material therefrom, keeping locals away, and and returning the recovered wreckage (and bodies) to Roswell under extremely tight security for further processing and later exploitation. Once back at Roswell AAF, it is generally alleged that special measures were taken to notify higher headquarters and arrangements made to have recovered materials shipped to other locations for analysis. These locations include Ft. Worth, Texas, the home of the Eighth Air Force Headquarters; possibly Sandia Base (now Kirtland AFB), New Mexico; possibly Andrews AAF, Maryland, and always to Wright Field, now known as Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio. The latter location was the home of "T-2" which later became known as the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) and the Air Materiel Command (AMC), and would, in fact, be a logical location to study unknown materials from whatever origin. Most of the Roswell stories that contain the recovery of alien bodies also show them being shipped to Wright Field. Once the material and bodies were dispersed for further analysis and/or exploitation, the government in general, and the Army Air Forces in particular, then engaged in covering up all information relating to the alleged crash and recovery, including the use of security oaths to military persons and the use of coercion (including alleged death threats) to others. This, as theorized by some UFO researchers, has allowed the government to keep the fact that there is intelligent extraterrestrial life from the American public for 47 years. It also supposedly allowed the US Government to exploit recovered extraterrestrial materials by reverse engineering them, ultimately providing such things as fiber optic and stealth technology. The "death threats," oaths, and other forms of coercion alleged to have been meted out by the Army Air Forces personnel to keep people from talking have apparently not been very effective, as several hundred people are claimed to have come forward (without harm) with some knowledge of the "Roswell Incident" during interviews with non- government researchers and the media. Adding some measure of credibility to the claims that have arisen since 1978 is the apparent depth of research of some of the authors and the extent of their efforts. Their claims are lessened somewhat, however, by the fact that almost all their information came from verbal reports many years after the alleged incident occurred. Many of the persons interviewed were, in fact, stationed at, or lived near Roswell during the time in question, and a number of them claim military service. Most, however, related their stories in their older years, well after the fact. In other cases, the information provided is second or third-hand, having been passed through a friend or relative after the principal had died. What is uniquely lacking in the entire exploration and exploitation of the "Roswell Incident" is official positive documentary or physical evidence of any kind that supports the claims of those who allege that something unusual happened. Conversely, there has never been any previous documentary evidence produced by those who would debunk the incident to show that something did not happen; although logic dictates that bureaucracies do not spend time documenting non- events. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 74 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:35:00 To : ALL Subj : De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel 6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY To insure senior Air Force leadership that there were no hidden or overlooked files that night relate to the "Roswell Incident;" and to provide the GAO with the best and most complete information available, SAF/AAZ constructed a strategy based on direct tasking from the Office of the Secretary, to elicit information from those functional offices and organizations where such information might logically be contained. This included directing searches at current offices where special or unusual projects night be carried out, as well as historical organizations, archives, and records centers over which the Air Force exerted some degree of control. Researchers did not, however, go to the US Army to review historical records in areas such as missile launches from White Sands, or to the Department of Energy to determine if its forerunner, the Atomic Energy Commission, had any records of nuclear-related incidents that might have occurred at or near Roswell in 1947. To do so would have encroached on GAO's charter in this matter. What Air Force researchers did do, however, was to search for records still under Air Force control pertaining to these subject areas. In order to determine parameters for the most productive search of records, a review was first conducted of the major works regarding the "Roswell Incident" available in the popular literature. These works included: _The Roswell Incident_, (1980) by William Moore and Charles Berlitz; Crashed Saucers: Evidence in Search of Proof, (1985) by Moore; _The UFO Crash at Roswell_, (1991) by Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt; _The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell_, (1994) also by Randle and Schmitt; _The Roswell Report: A Historical Perspective_, (1991), George M. Eberhart, Editor; _The Roswell Events,_ (1993) compiled by Fred Whiting;_Crash at Corona_ (1992) by Stanton T. Friedman and Don Berliner, as well as numerous other articles written by a combination of the above and other researchers. Collectively, the above represent the "pro" UFO writers who allege that the government is engaged in a conspiracy. There are no specific books written entirely on the theme that nothing happened at Roswell. However, Curtis Peebles in _Watch the Skies!_ (1994) discussed the development of the UFO story and growth of subsequent claims as a phenomenon. There has also been serious research as well as a number of detailed articles written by so-called "debunkers" of Roswell and other incidents, most notably Philip J. Klass who writes _The Skeptical Inquirer_ newsletter, and Robert Todd, a private researcher. The concerns and claims of all the above authors and others were considered in conducting the USAF records search. It was also decided, particularly after a review of the above popular literature, that no specific attempt would be made to try to refute, point by point, the numerous claims made in the various publications. Many of these claims appear to be hearsay, undocumented, taken out of context, self-serving, or otherwise dubious. Additionally, many of the above authors are not even in agreement over various claims. Most notable of the confusing and now ever-changing claims is the controversy over the date(s) of the alleged incident, the exact location(s) of the purported debris and the extent of the wreckage. Such discrepancies in claims made the search much more difficult by greatly expanding the volume of records that had to be searched. An example of trying to deal with questionable claims is illustrated by the following example: One of the popular books mentioned that was reviewed claimed that the writers had submitted the names and serial numbers of "over two dozen" personnel stationed at Roswell in July, 1947, to the Veterans Administration and the Defense Department to confirm their military service. They then listed eleven of these persons by name and asked the question: "Why does neither the Defense Department nor the Veteran's Administration have records of any of these men when we can document that each served at Roswell Army Air Field." That claim sounded serious so SAF/AAZD was tasked to check these eleven names in the Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. Using only the names (since the authors did not list the serial numbers) the researcher quickly found records readily identifiable with eight of these persons. The other three had such common names that there could have been multiple possibilities. Interestingly, one of the listed "missing" persons had a casualty report in his records reflecting that he died in 1951, while the writers claimed to have interviewed him (or a person of the exact same name) in 1990. While the historical document search was in progress, it was decided to attempt to locate and interview several persons identified as still living who could possibly answer questions generated by the research. This had never been officially done before, although most of the persons contacted reported that they had also been contacted in the past by some of the listed authors or other private researchers. In order to counter possible future arguments that the persons interviewed were still "covering up" material because of prior security oaths, the interviewees were provided with authorization from either the Secretary of the Air Force or the Senior Security Official of the Air Force that would officially allow discussion of classified information, if applicable, or free them from any prior restriction in discussing the matter, if such existed. Again, the focus was on interviewing persons that could address specific issues, raised by research and no consideration was given to try and locate every alleged witness claimed to have been contacted by the various authors. For example, one of the interviewees thought vital to obtain an official signed, sworn statement from was Sheridan Cavitt, Lt. Col, USAF (Retired) who is the last living member of the three persons universally acknowledged to have recovered material from the Foster Ranch. Others were also interviewed as information developed (discussed in detail later). Additionally, in some cases survivors of deceased persons were also contacted in an attempt to locate various records thought to have been in the custody of the deceased. Even though Air Force research originally started in January, 1994, the first official Air Force-wide tasking was directed by the March 1, 1994, memorandum from SAF/AA, (Atch 5) and was addressed to those current Air Staff elements that would be the likely repository for any records, particularly if there was anything of an extraordinary nature involved. This meant that the search was not limited to unclassified materials, but also would include records of the highest classification and compartmentation. The specific Air Staff/Secretariat offices queried included the following: (a) SAF/AAI, Directorate of Information Management (b) SAF/AQL, Directorate of Electronics and Special Programs (c) AF/SE, Air Force Safety (d) AF/HO, Air Force Historian (e) AF/IN, Air Force Intelligence (including Air Force Intelligence Agency-AFIA, and the National Air Intelligence Center, NAIC) (f) AF/XOW, Directorate of Weather (g) (added later) The Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) In addition to the above Air Staff and Secretariat offices, SAF/AAZ also reviewed appropriate classified records for any tie-in to this matter. With regards to highly classified records, it should be noted that any program that employ enhanced security measures or controls are known as a Special Access Programs (SAPs). The authority for such programs comes from Executive Order 12356 and flows from the Department of Defense to the Services via DoD Directive 5205.7. These programs are implemented in the Air Force by Policy Directive 16-7, and Air Force Instruction 16-701. These directives contain detailed requirements for controlling and reporting, in a very strict manner, all SAPs. This includes a report from the Secretary of the Air Force to the Secretary of Defense (and ultimately to Congress) on all SAPs submitted for approval, and a certification that there are no "SAP-like' programs being operated. These reporting requirements are stipulated in public law. It followed then, that if the Air Force had recovered some type of extraterrestrial spacecraft and/or bodies and was exploiting this for scientific and technology purposes, then such a program would be operated as a SAP. SAF/AAZ, the Central Office for all Air Force SAPs, has knowledge of, and security oversight over, all SAPs. SAF/AAZ categorically stated that no such Special Access Program(s) exists that pertain to extraterrestrial spacecraft/aliens. Likewise, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff, who head the Special Program Oversight Committee which oversees all sensitive programs in the Air Force, had no knowledge of the existence of any such program involving, or relating to the events at Roswell or the alleged technology that supposedly resulted therefrom. Besides the obvious irregularity and illegality of keeping such information from the most senior Air Force officials, it would also be illogical, since these officials are responsible for obtaining funding for operations, research, development, and security. Without funding such a program, operation, or organization could not exist. Even to keep such a fact "covered up" in some sort of passive "caretaker status" would involve money. More importantly, it would involve people and create paperwork. The aforementioned March 1, 1994, SAF/AA tasking generated negative responses (Atch 6-12) from all recipients; i.e. all offices reported that they had no information that would explain the incident. Consequently, these negative responses led to an increase in the already on-going historical research at records centers and archives. The extensive archival and records center search was systematically carried out at by the SAF/AAZD Declassification Review Team. This team is composed entirely of Air Force Reserve personnel who have extensive training and experience in large scale review of records. (Previous efforts include the Southeast Asia Declassification Review, declassification of POW/MIA records, and the review of the Gulf War Air Power Survey records). The team members all had the requisite security clearances for classified information and had the authority of the Secretary of the Air Force to declassify any classified record they found that might be related to Roswell. SAF/AAZD conducted reviews at a number of locations, including: the National Archives in Washington, DC; the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO; the National Archives, Suitland MD; the National Records Center, Suitland, MD; Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC; Federal Records Center, Ft Worth, TX; the INSCOM Archives, Ft. Meade, MD; National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC; Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, AL; Center for Air Force History, Bolling AFB, DC; Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA and Kirtland AFB, NM; Rome Laboratory, Griffiss AFB, NY; and the Library of Congress, Washington, DC. A listing of the specific record areas searched is appended as Atch 13. The areas included all those subject areas logically believed to possibly contain any reference to activities at Roswell AAF during the period of time in question. It is anticipated that detractors from this effort will complain that "they did not search record group x, box y, or reel Z, etc.; that's where the real records are!" Such complaints are unavoidable and there is no possible way that the millions of records under Air Force control could be searched page by page. The team endeavored to make logical searches in those places where records would likely be found. They were assisted in this task by archivists, historians, and records management specialists, including experienced persons who have continually worked in Army and Air Force records systems since 1943. The team also searched some record areas that were recommended by serious private researchers such as Robert Todd, who had independently obtained almost encyclopedic knowledge of the complexities of Air Force records systems, particularly as related to this subject area. Not surprisingly, the research team found the usual number of problems in many of the records centers (particularly St. Louis) with misfiling, lost or misplaced documents, mismarking of documents, or the breaking up of record groups over the years and refiling in different systems. This included, for example, a small amount of missing "decimal files" from the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell that covered the years 1945-1949, that were marked on the index as "destroyed." The researchers noted that there was no pattern to any anomalies found and that most discrepancies were minor and consistent with what they had found in the past on similar projects. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 75 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:36:00 To : ALL Subj : De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel 7 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ WHAT THE ROSWELL INCIDENT WAS NOT Before discussing specific positive results that these efforts revealed, it is first appropriate to discuss those things, as indicated by information available to the Air Force, that the "Roswell incident" WAS NOT: An Airplane Crash Of all the things that are documented and tracked within the Air Force, among the most detailed and scrupulous are airplane crashes. In fact, records of air crashes go back to the first years of military flight. Safety records and reports are available for all crashes that involved serious damage, injury, death, or a combination of these factors. These records also include incidents involving experimental or classified aircraft. USAF records showed that between June 24, 1947, and July 28, 1947, there were five crashes in New Mexico alone, involving A-26C, P-5 IN, C-82A, P-BOA and PQ-14B aircraft; however, none of these were on the date(s) in question nor in the area(s) in question. One of the additional areas specifically set forth by GAO in its efforts was to deal with how the Air Force (and others) specifically documented ."..weather balloon .. and other crash incidents." In this area, the search efforts revealed that there are no AIR safety records pertaining to weather balloon crashes (all weather balloons "crash* sooner or later); however, there are provisions for generating reports of "crashes" as ground safety incidents in the unlikely chance that a balloon injures someone or causes damage. However, such records are only maintained for five years. A Missile Crash A crashed or errant missile, usually described as a captured German V-2 or one of its variants, is sometimes set forth as a possible explanation for the debris recovered near Roswell. Since much of this testing done at nearby White Sands was secret at the time, it would be logical to assume that the government would handle any missile mishap under tight security, particularly if the mishap occurred on private land. From the records reviewed by the Air Force, however, there was nothing located to suggest that this was the case. Although the bulk of remaining testing records are under the control of the US Army, the subject has also been very well documented over the years within Air Force records. There would be no reason to keep such information classified today. The USAF found no indicators or even hints that a missile was involved in this matter. A Nuclear Accident One of the areas considered was that whatever happened near Roswell may have involved nuclear weapons. This was a logical area of concern since the 509th Bomb Group was the only military unit in the world at the time that had access to nuclear weapons. Again, reviews of available records gave no indication that this was the case. A number of records still classified TOP SECRET and SECRET-RESTRICTED DATA having to do with nuclear weapons were located in the Federal Records Center in St. Louis, MO. These records, which pertained to the 509th, had nothing to do with any activities that could have been misinterpreted as the "Roswell Incident." Also, any records of a nuclear related incident would have been inherited by the Department of Energy (DOE), and, had one occurred, it is likely DOE would have publicly reported it as part of its recent declassification and public release efforts. There were no ancillary records in Air Force files to indicate the potential existence of such records within DOE channels, however. An Extraterrestrial Craft The Air Force research found absolutely no indication that what happened near Roswell in 1947, involved any type of extraterrestrial spacecraft. This, of course, is the crux of this entire matter. "Pro-UFO" persons who obtain a copy of this report, at this point, most probably begin the "cover-up is still on" claims. Nevertheless, the research indicated absolutely no evidence OF ANY KIND that a spaceship crashed near Roswell or that any alien occupants were recovered therefrom, in some secret military operation or otherwise. This does not mean, however, that the early Air Force was not concerned about UFOs. However, in the early days, "UFO" meant Unidentified Flying Object, which literally translated as some object in the air that was not readily identifiable. It did not mean, as the term has evolved in today's language, to equate to alien spaceships. Records from the period reviewed by Air Force researchers as well as those cited by the authors mentioned before, do indicate that the USAF _was_ seriously concerned about the inability to adequately identify unknown flying objects reported in American airspace. All the records, however, indicated that the focus of concern was not on aliens, hostile or otherwise, but on the Soviet Union. Many documents from that period speak to the possibility of developmental secret Soviet aircraft overlying US airspace. This, of course, was of major concern to the fledgling USAF, whose job it was to protect these same skies. The research revealed only one official AAF document that indicated that there was any activity of any type that pertained to UFOs and Roswell in July, 1947. This was a small section of the July Historical Report for the 509th Bomb Group and Roswell AAF that stated: "The Office of Public Information was quite busy during the month answering inquiries on the 'flying disc,' which was reported to be in possession of the 509th Bomb Group. The object turned out to be a radar tracking balloon" (included with Atch I 1). Additionally, this history showed that the 509th Commander, Colonel Blanchard, went on leave on July 8, 1947, which would be a somewhat unusual maneuver for a person involved in the supposed first ever recovery of extraterrestrial materials. (Detractors claim Blanchard did this as a ploy to elude the press and go to the scene to direct the recovery operations). The history and the morning reports also showed that the subsequent activities at Roswell during the month were mostly mundane and not indicative of any unusual high level activity, expenditure of manpower, resources or security. Likewise, the researchers found no indication of heightened activity anywhere else in the military hierarchy in the July, 1947, message traffic or orders (to include classified traffic). There were no indications and warnings, notice of alerts, or a higher tempo of operational activity reported that would be logically generated if an alien craft, whose intentions were unknown, entered US territory. To believe that such operational and high-level security activity could be conducted solely by relying on unsecured telecommunications or personal contact without creating any records of such activity certainly stretches the imagination of those who have served in the military who know that paperwork of some kind is necessary to accomplish even emergency, highly classified, or sensitive tasks. An example of activity sometimes cited by pro-UFO writers to illustrate the point that something unusual was going on was the travel of Lt. General Nathan Twining, Commander of the Air Materiel Command, to New Mexico in July, 1947. Actually, records were located indicating that Twining went to the Bomb Commanders' Course on July 8, along with a number of other general officers, and requested orders to do so a month before, on June 5, 1947 (Atch 14). Similarly, it has also been alleged that General Hoyt Vandenberg, Deputy Chief of Staff at the time, had been involved directing activity regarding events at Roswell. Activity reports (Atch 15), located in General Vandenberg's personal papers stored in the Library of Congress, did indicate that on July 7, he was busy with a "flying disc" incident; however this particular incident involved Ellington Field, Texas and the Spokane (Washington) Depot. After much discussion and information gathering on this incident, it was learned to be a hoax. There is no similar mention of his personal interest or involvement in Roswell events except in the newspapers. The above are but two small examples that indicate that if some event happened that was one of the "watershed happenings" in human history, the US military certainly reacted in an unconcerned and cavalier manner. In an actual case, the military would have had to order thousands of soldiers and airman, not only at Roswell but throughout the US, to act nonchalantly, pretend to conduct and report business as usual, and generate absolutely no paperwork of a suspicious nature, while simultaneously anticipating that twenty years or more into the future people would have available a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act that would give them great leeway to review and explore government documents. The records indicate that none of this happened (or if it did, it was controlled by a security system so efficient and tight that no one, US or otherwise, has been able to duplicate it since. If such a system had been in effect at the time, it would have also been used to protect our atomic secrets from the Soviets, which history has showed obviously was not the case). The records reviewed confirmed that no such sophisticated and efficient security system existed. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 76 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:36:00 To : ALL Subj : De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel 8 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ WHAT THE "ROSWELL INCIDENT" WAS As previously discussed, what was originally reported to have been recovered was a balloon of some sort, usually described as a "weather balloon," although the majority of the wreckage that was ultimately displayed by General Ramey and Major Marcel in the famous photos (Atch 16) in Ft. Worth, was that of a radar target normally suspended from balloons. This radar target, discussed in more detail later, was certainly consistent with the description of July 9 newspaper article which discussed "tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks." Additionally, the description of the "flying disc" was consistent with a document routinely used by most pro-UFO writers to indicate a conspiracy in progress-the telegram from the Dallas FBI office of July 8, 1947. This document quoted in part states: ."...The disc is hexagonal in shape and was suspended from a balloon by a cable, which balloon was approximately twenty feet in diameter. "..the object found resembles a high altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector. ...disc and balloon being transported..." Similarly, while conducting the popular literature review, one of the documents reviewed was a paper entitled "The Roswell Events" edited by Fred Whiting, and sponsored by the Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR). Although it was not the original intention to comment on what commercial authors interpreted or claimed that other persons supposedly said, this particular document was different because it contained actual copies of apparently authentic sworn affidavits received from a number of persons who claimed to have some knowledge of the Roswell event. Although many of the persons who provided these affidavits to the FUFOR researchers also expressed opinions that they thought there was something extraterrestrial about this incident, a number of them actually described materials that sounded suspiciously like wreckage from balloons. These included the following: Jesse A. Marcel, MD (son of the late Major Jesse Marcel; 11 years old at the time of the incident). Affidavit dated May 6, 1991. " ... There were three categories of debris: a thick, foil like metallic gray substance; a brittle, brownish-black plastic-like material, like Bakelite; and there were fragments of what appeared to be I-beams. On the inner surface of the I-beam, there appeared to be a type of writing. This writing was a purple-violet hue, and it had an embossed appearance. The figures were composed of curved, geometric shapes. It had no resemblance to Russian, Japanese or any other foreign language. It resembled hieroglyphics, but it had no animal-like characters...* Loretta Proctor (former neighbor of rancher W. W. Brazel). Affidavit dated May 5, 1991. ."..Brazel came to my ranch and showed my husband and me a piece of material he said came from a large pile of debris on the property he managed. The piece he brought was brown in color, similar to plastic...'Mac' said the other material on the property looked like aluminum foil. It was very flexible and wouldn't crush or burn. There was also something he described as tape which had printing on it. The color of the printing was a kind of purple..." Bessie Brazel Schreiber (daughter of W.W. Brazel; 14 years old at the time of the incident). Affidavit dated September 22, 1993. ."..The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which had burst. The pieces were small, the largest I remember measuring about the same as the diameter of a basketball. Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber. Sticks, like kite sticks, were attached to some of the pieces with a whitish tape. The tape was about two or three inches wide and had flower-like designs on it. The 'flowers' were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and reminded me of Japanese paintings in which the flowers are not all connected. I do not recall any other types of material or markings, nor do I remember seeing gouges in the ground or any other signs that anything may have hit the ground hard. The foil- rubber material could not be torn like ordinary aluminum foil can be torn..." Sally Strickland Tadolini (neighbor of WW Brazel; nine years old in 1947). Affidavit dated September 27, 1993. ."..What Bill showed us was a piece of what I still think as fabric. It was something like aluminum foil, something like satin, something like well-tanned leather in its toughness, yet was not precisely like any one of those materials. ...It was about the thickness of very fine kidskin glove leather and a dull metallic grayish silver, one side slightly darker than the other. I do not remember it having any design or embossing on it..." Robert R. Porter (B-29 flight Engineer stationed at Roswell in 1947). Affidavit dated June 7, 1991. ."..On this occasion, I was a member of the crew which flew parts of what we were told was a flying saucer to Fort Worth. The people on board included ... and Maj Jesse Marcel. Capt. William E. Anderson said it was from a flying saucer. After we arrived, the material was transferred to a B-25. I was told they were going to Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. I was involved in loading the B-29 with the material, which was wrapped in packages with wrapping paper. One of the pieces was triangle-shaped, about 2 1/2 feet across the bottom. The rest were in small packages, about the size of a shoe box. The brown paper was held with tape. The material was extremely lightweight. When I picked it up, it was just like picking up an empty package. We loaded the triangle shaped package and three shoe box-sized packages into the plane. All of the packages could have fit into the trunk of a car. "..When we came back from lunch, they told us they had transferred the material to a B-25. They told us the material was a weather balloon, but I'm certain it wasn't a weather balloon..." In addition to those persons above still living who claim to have seen or examined the original material found on the Brazel Ranch, there is one additional person who was universally acknowledged to have been involved in its recovery, Sheridan Cavitt, Lt. Col, USAF, (Ret). Cavitt is credited in all claims of having accompanied Major Marcel to the ranch to recover the debris, sometimes along with his Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) subordinate, William Rickett, who, like Marcel, is deceased. Although there does not appear to be much dispute that Cavitt was involved in the material recovery, other claims about him prevail in the popular literature. He is sometimes portrayed as a closed-mouth (or sometimes even sinister) conspirator who was one of the early individuals who kept the "secret of Roswell" from getting out. Other things about him have been alleged, including the claim that he wrote a report of the incident at the time that has never surfaced. Since Lt. Col Cavitt, who had first-hand knowledge, was still alive, a decision was made to interview him and get a signed sworn statement from him about his version of the events. Prior to the interview, the Secretary of the Air Force provided him with a written authorization and waiver to discuss classified information with the interviewer and release him from any security oath he may have taken. Subsequently, Cavitt was interviewed on May 24, 1994, at his home. Cavitt provided a signed, sworn statement (Atch 17) of his recollections in this matter. He also consented to having the interview tape-recorded. A transcript of that recording is at Atch 18. In this interview, Cavitt related that he had been contacted on numerous occasions by UFO researchers and had willingly talked with many of them; however, he felt that he had oftentimes been misrepresented or had his comments taken out of context so that their true meaning was changed. He stated unequivocally, however, that the material he recovered consisted of a reflective sort of material like aluminum foil, and some thin, bamboo-like sticks. He thought at the time, and continued to do so today, that what he found was a weather balloon and has told other private researchers that. He also remembered finding a small "black box" type of instrument, which he thought at the time was probably a radiosonde. Lt. Col Cavitt also reviewed the famous Ramey/Marcel photographs (Atch 16) of the wreckage taken to Ft. Worth (often claimed by UFO researchers to have been switched and the remnants of a balloon substituted for it) and he identified the materials depicted in those photos as consistent with the materials that he recovered from the ranch. Lt. Col Cavitt so stated that he had never taken any oath or signed any agreement not to talk about this incident and had never been threatened by anyone in the government because of it. He did not even know the "incident" was claimed to be anything unusual until he was interviewed in the early 1980's. Similarly, Irving Newton, Major, USAF, (Ret) was located and interviewed. Newton was a weather officer assigned to Fort Worth, who was on duty when the Roswell debris was sent, there in July, 1947. He was told that he was to report to General Ramey's office to view the material. In a signed, sworn statement (Atch 30) Newton related that ."..I walked into the General's office where this supposed flying saucer was lying all over the floor. As soon as I saw it, I giggled and asked if that was the flying saucer ... I told them that this was a balloon and a RAWIN target..." Newton also stated that ."..while I was examining the debris, Major Marcel was picking up pieces of the target sticks and trying to convince me that some notations on the sticks were alien writings. there were figures on the sticks, lavender or pink in color, appeared to be weather faded markings, with no rhyme or reason (sic). He did not convince me that these were alien writings." Newton concluded his statement by relating that ."..During the ensuing years I have been interviewed by many authors, I have been quoted and misquoted. The facts remain as indicated above. I was not influenced during the original interview, nor today, to provide anything but what I know to be true, that is, the material I saw in General Ramey's office was the remains of a balloon and a RAWIN target." Balloon Research The original tasking from GAO noted that the search for information included "weather balloons." Comments about balloons and safety reports have already been made, however the SAF/AAZ research efforts also focused on reviewing historical records involving balloons, since, among other reasons, that was what was officially claimed by the AAF to have been found and recovered in 1947. As early as February 28, 1994, the AAZD research team found references to balloon tests taking place at Alamogordo AAF (now Holloman AFB) and White Sands during June and July 1947, testing "constant level balloons" and a New York University (NYU)/Watson Labs effort that used "...meteorological devices ... suspected for detecting shock waves generated by Soviet nuclear explosions" - a possible indication of a cover story associated with the NYU balloon project. Subsequently, a 1946 HQ AMC memorandum was surfaced, describing the constant altitude balloon project and specified that the scientific data be classified TOP SECRET Priority 1A. Its name was Project Mogul (Atch 19). Project Mogul was a then-sensitive, classified project, whose purpose was to determine the state of Soviet nuclear weapons research. This was the early Cold War period and there was serious concern within the US government about the Soviets developing a weaponized atomic device. Because the Soviet Union's borders were closed, the US Government sought to develop a long range nuclear explosion detection capability. Long range, balloon-borne, low frequency acoustic detection was posed to General Spaatz in 1945 by Dr. Maurice Ewing of Columbia University as a potential solution (atmospheric ducting of low frequency pressure waves had been studied as early as 1900). As part of the research into this matter, AAZD personnel located and obtained the original study papers and reports of the New York University project. Their efforts also revealed that some of the individuals involved in Project Mogul were still living. These persons included the NYU constant altitude balloon Director of Research, Dr. Athelstan F. Spilhaus; the Project Engineer, Professor Charles B. Moore; and the military Project Officer, Colonel Albert C. Trakowski. All of these persons were subsequently interviewed and signed sworn statements about their activities. A copy of theses statements are appended at Atch 20-22. Additionally, transcripts of the interview with Moore and Trakowski are also included (equipment malfunctioned during the interview of Spilhaus) (Atch 23-24). These interviews confirmed that Project Mogul was a compartmented, sensitive effort. The NYU group was responsible for developing constant level balloons and telemetering equipment that would remain at specified altitudes (within the acoustic duct) while a group from Columbia was to develop acoustic sensors. Doctor Spilhaus, Professor Moore, and certain others of the group were aware of the actual purpose of the project, but they did not know of the project nickname at the time. They handled casual inquiries and/or scientific inquiries/papers in terms of "unclassified meteorological or balloon research." Newly hired employees were not made aware that there was anything special or classified about their work; they were told only that their work dealt with meteorological equipment. An advance ground team, led by Albert P. Crary, preceded the NYU group to Alamogordo AAF, New Mexico, setting up ground sensors and obtaining facilities for the NYU group. Upon their arrival, Professor Moore and his team experimented with various configurations of neoprene balloons; development of balloon "trains" (see illustration, Atch 25); automatic ballast systems; and use of Naval sonobuoys (as the Watson Lab acoustical sensors had not yet arrived). They also launched what they called "service flights." These "service flights" were not logged nor fully accounted for in the published Technical Reports generated as a result of the contract between NYU and Watson Labs. According to Professor Moore, the "service flights' were composed of balloons, radar reflectors and payloads specifically designed to test acoustic --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 77 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:36:00 To : ALL Subj : 2 De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel 8 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ sensors (both early sonobuoys and the later Watson Labs devices). The "payload equipment" was expendable and some carried no "REWARD" or "RETURN TO..." tags because there was to be no association between these flights and the logged constant altitude flights which were fully acknowledged. The NYU balloon flights were listed sequentially in their reports (i.e., A,B, 1,5,6,7,8,10 ...) yet gaps existed for Flights 2-4 and Flight 9. The interview with Professor Moore indicated that these gaps were the unlogged "service flights." Professor Moore, the on-scene Project Engineer, gave detailed information concerning his team's efforts. He recalled that radar targets were used for tracking balloons because they did not have all the necessary equipment when they first arrived in New Mexico. Some of the early developmental radar targets were manufactured by a toy or novelty company. These targets were made up of aluminum "foil" or foil-backed paper, balsa wood beams that were coated in an "Elmer's-type" glue to enhance their durability, acetate and/or cloth reinforcing tape, single stand and braided nylon twine, brass eyelets and swivels to form a multi-faced reflector somewhat similar in construction to a box kite (see photographs, Atch 26). Some of these targets were also assembled with purplish-pink tape with symbols on it (see drawing by Moore with Atch 21). According to the log summary (Atch 27) of the NYU group, Flight A through Flight 7 (November 20, 1946-July 2, 1947) were made with neoprene meteorological balloons (as opposed to the later flights made with polyethylene balloons). Professor Moore stated that the neoprene balloons were susceptible to degradation in the sunlight, turning from a milky white to a dark brown. He described finding remains of balloon trains with reflectors and payloads that had landed in the desert: the ruptured and shredded neoprene would "almost look like dark gray or black flakes or ashes after exposure to the sun for only a few days. The plasticizers and antioxidants in the neoprene would emit a peculiar acrid odor and the balloon material and radar target material would be scattered after returning to earth depending on the surface winds." Upon review of the local newspaper photographs from General Ramey's press conference in 1947 and descriptions in popular books by individuals who supposedly handled the debris recovered on the ranch, Professor Moore opined that the material was most likely the shredded remains of a multi-neoprene balloon train with multiple radar reflectors. The material and a "black box," described by Cavitt, was, in Moore's scientific opinion, most probably from Flight 4, a "service flight" that included a cylindrical metal sonobuoy and portions of a weather instrument housed in a box, which was unlike typical weather radiosondes which were made of cardboard. Additionally, a copy of a professional journal maintained at the time by A.P. Crary, provided to the Air Force by his widow, showed that Flight 4 was launched on June 4, 1947, but was not recovered by the NYU group. It is very probable that this TOP SECRET project balloon train (Flight 4), made up of unclassified components; came to rest some miles northwest of Roswell, NM, became shredded in the surface winds and was ultimately found by the rancher, Brazel, ten days later. This possibility was supported by the observations of Lt. Col Cavitt (Atch 17-18), the only living eyewitness to the actual debris field and the material found. Lt. Col Cavitt described a small area of debris which appeared, "to resemble bamboo type square sticks one quarter to one half inch square, that were very fight, as well as some sort of metallic reflecting material that was also very light ... I remember recognizing this material as being consistent with a weather balloon." Concerning the initial announcement, "RAAF Captures Flying Disc," research failed to locate any documented evidence as to why that statement was made. However, on July 10, 1947, following the Ramey press conference, the Alamogordo News published an article with photographs demonstrating multiple balloons and targets at the same location as the NYU group operated from at Alamogordo AAF. Professor Moore expressed surprise at seeing this since his, was the only balloon test group in the area. He stated, "It appears that there was some type of umbrella cover story to protect our work with Mogul." Although the Air Force did not find documented evidence that Gen. Ramey was directed to espouse a weather balloon in his press conference, he may have done so because he was either aware of Project Mogul and was trying to deflect interest from it, or he readily perceived the material to be a weather balloon based on the identification from his weather officer, Irving Newton. In either case, the materials recovered by the AAF in July, 1947, were not readily recognizable as anything special (only the purpose was special) and the recovered debris itself was unclassified. Additionally, the press dropped its interest in the matter as quickly as they had jumped on it. Hence, there would be no particular reason to further document what quickly became a "non-event." The interview with Colonel Trakowski (Atch 23-24) also proved valuable information. Trakowski provided specific details on Project Mogul and described how the security for the program was set up, as he was formerly the TOP SECRET Control Officer for the program. He further related that many of the original radar targets that were produced around the end of World War II were fabricated by toy or novelty companies using a purplish-pink tape with flower and heart symbols on it. Trakowski also recounted a conversation that he had with his friend, and superior military officer in his chain of command, Colonel Marcellus Duffy, in July, 1947. Duffy, formerly had Trakowski's position on Mogul, but had subsequently been transferred to Wright Field. He stated: ."..Colonel Duffy called me on the telephone from Wright Field and gave me a story about a fellow that had come in from New Mexico, woke him up in the middle of the night or some such thing with a handful of debris, and wanted him, Colonel Duffy, to identify it. ... He just said 'it sure looks like some of the stuff you've been launching at Alamogordo' and he described it, and I said 'yes, I think it is.' Certainly Colonel Duffy knew enough about radar targets, radiosondes, balloon-borne weather devices. He was intimately familiar with all that apparatus." Attempts were made to locate Colonel Duffy but it was ascertained that he had died. His widow explained that, although he had amassed a large amount of personal papers relating to his Air Force activities, she had recently disposed of these items. Likewise, it was learned that A.P. Crary was also deceased; however his surviving spouse had a number of his papers from his balloon testing days, including his professional journal from the period in question. She provided the Air Force researchers with this material. It is discussed in more detail within Atch 32. Overall, it helps fill in gaps of the Mogul story. During the period the Air Force conducted this research, it was discovered that several others had also discovered the possibility that the "Roswell Incident" may have been generated by the recovery of a Project Mogul balloon device. These persons included Professor Charles B. Moore, Robert Todd, and coincidentally, Karl Pflock, a researcher who is married to a staffer who works for Congressman Schiff. Some of these persons provided suggestions as to where documentation might be located in various archives, histories and libraries. A review of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests revealed that Robert Todd, particularly, had become aware of Project Mogul several years ago and had doggedly obtained from the Air Force, through the FOIA, a large amount of material pertaining to it; long before the AAZD researchers independently seized on the same possibility. Most interestingly, as this report was being written, Pflock published his own report of this matter under the auspices of FUFOR, entitled "Roswell in Perspective" (1994). Pflock concluded from his research that the Brazel Ranch debris originally reported as a "flying disc" was probably debris from a Mogul balloon; however, there was a simultaneous incident that occurred not far away, that caused an alien craft to crash and that the AAF subsequently recovered three alien bodies therefrom. Air Force research did not locate any information to corroborate that this incredible coincidence occurred, however. In order to provide a more detailed discussion of the specifics of Project Mogul and how it appeared to be directly responsible for the "Roswell Incident," a SAF/AAZD researcher prepared a more detailed discussion on the balloon project which is appended to this report as Atch 32. Other Research In the attempt to develop additional information that could help explain this matter, a number of other steps were taken. First, assistance was requested from various museums and other archives (Atch 28) to obtain information and/or examples of the actual balloons and radar targets used in connection with Project Mogul and to correlate them with the various descriptions of wreckage and materials recovered. The blueprints for the "Pilot Balloon Target ML307C/AP Assembly" (generically, the radar target assembly) were located at the Army Signal Corps Museum at Fort Monmouth and obtained. A copy is appended as Atch 29. This blueprint provides the specification for the foil material, tape, wood, eyelets, and string used and the assembly instructions thereto. An actual device was also obtained for study with the assistance of Professor Moore. (The example actually procured was a 1953-manufactured model "C" as compared to the Model B which was in use in 1947. Professor Moore related the differences were minor). An examination of this device revealed it to be simply made of aluminum-colored foil-like material over a stronger paper-like material, attached to balsa wood sticks, affixed with tape, glue, and twine. When opened, the device appears as depicted in Atch 31 (contemporary photo) and Atch 25 (1947 photo, in a "balloon train"). When folded, the device is in a series of triangles, the largest being four feet by two feet ten inches. The smallest triangle section measures two feet by two feet ten inches. (Compare with descriptions provided by Lt. Col Cavitt and others, as well as photos of wreckage). Additionally, the researchers obtained from the Archives of the University of Texas-Arlington (UTA), a set of original (i.e. first generation) prints of the photographs taken at the time by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, that depicted Ramey and Marcel with the wreckage. A close review of these photos (and a set of first generation negatives also subsequently obtained from UTA) revealed several infesting observations. First, although in some of the literature cited above, Marcel allegedly stated that he had his photo taken with the "real" UFO wreckage and then it was subsequently removed and the weather balloon wreckage substituted for it, a comparison shows that the same wreckage appeared in the photos of Marcel and Ramey. The photos also depicted that this material was lying on what appeared to be some sort of wrapping paper (consistent with affidavit excerpt of crew chief Porter, above). It was also noted that in the two photos of Ramey he had a piece of paper in his hand. In one, it was folded over so nothing could be seen. In the second, however, there appears to be text printed on the paper. In an attempt to read this text to determine if it could shed any further light on locating documents relating to this matter, the photo was sent to a national level organization for digitizing and subsequent photo interpretation and analysis. This organization was also asked to scrutinize the digitized photos for any indication of the flowered tape (or "hieroglyphics, depending on the point of view) that were reputed to be visible to some of the persons who observed the wreckage prior to it getting to Fort Worth. This organization reported on July 20, 1994, that even after digitizing, the photos were of insufficient quality to visualize either of the details sought for analysis. This organization was able to obtain measurements from the "sticks" visible in the debris after it was ascertained by an interview of the original photographer what kind of camera he used. The results of this process are provided in Atch 33, along with a reference diagram and the photo from which the measurements were made. All these measurements are compatible with the wooden materials used in the radar target previously described. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 78 of 81 From : Jan Ruth 2:284/313 04 May 95 12:37:00 To : ALL Subj : De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel 9 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CONCLUSION The Air Force research did not locate or develop any information that the "Roswell Incident" was a UFO event. All available official materials, although they do not directly address Roswell per se, indicate that the most likely source of the wreckage recovered from the Brazel Ranch was from one of the Project Mogul balloon trains. Although that project was TOP SECRET at the time, there was also no specific indication found to indicate an official pre-planned cover story was in place to explain an event such as that which ultimately happened. It appears that the identification of the wreckage as being part of a weather balloon device, as reported in the newspapers at the time, was based on the fact that there was no physical difference in the radar targets and the neoprene balloons (other than the numbers and configuration) between Mogul balloons and normal weather balloons. Additionally, it seems that there was over-reaction by Colonel Blanchard and Major Marcel, in originally reporting that a "flying disc" had been recovered when, at that time, nobody for sure knew what that term even meant since the it had only been in use for a couple of weeks. Likewise, there was no indication in official records from the period that there was heightened military operational or security activity which should have been generated if this was, in fact, the first recovery of materials and/or persons from another world. The post-War US Military (or today's for that matter) did not have the capability to rapidly identify, recover, coordinate, cover-up, and quickly public scrutiny of such an event. The claim that they did so without leaving even a little bit of a suspicious paper trail for 47 years is incredible. It should also be noted here that there was little mentioned in this report about the recovery of the so-called "alien bodies." This is for several reasons: First, the recovered wreckage was from a Project Mogul balloon. There were no "alien" passengers therein. Secondly, the pro- UFO groups who espouse the alien bodies theories cannot even agree among themselves as to what, how many, and where, such bodies were supposedly recovered. Additionally, some of these claims have been shown to be hoaxes, even by other UFO researchers. Thirdly, when such claim are made, they are often attributed to people using pseudonyms or who otherwise do not want to be publicly identified, presumably so that some sort of retribution cannot be taken against them (notwithstanding that nobody has been shown to have died, disappeared or otherwise suffered at the hands of the government during the last 47 years). Fourth, many of the persons making the biggest claims of "alien bodies" make their living from the "Roswell Incident." While having a commercial interest in something does not automatically make it suspect, it does raise interesting questions related to authenticity. Such persons should be encouraged to present their evidence (not speculation) directly to the government and provide all pertinent details and evidence to support their claims if honest fact-finding is what is wanted. Lastly, persons who have come forward and provided their names and made claims, may have, in good faith but in the "fog of time," misinterpreted past events. The review of Air Force records did not locate even one piece of evidence to indicate that the Air Force has had any part in an "alien" body recovery operation or continuing cover-up. During the course of this effort, the Air Force has kept in close touch with the GAO and responded to their various queries and requests for assistance. This report was generated as an official response to the GAO, and to document the considerable effort expended by the Air Force on their behalf. It is anticipated that they will request a copy of this report to help formulate the formal report of their efforts. It is recommended that this document serve as the final Air Force report related to the Roswell matter, for the GAO, or any other inquiries. /s/ RICHARD L. WEAVER, COL, USAF DIRECTOR, SECURITY AND SPECIAL PROGRAM OVERSIGHT Attachments 1. Washington Post Article, "GAO Turns to Alien Turf in New Probe," January 14, 1994 2. GAO Memo, February 15, 1994 3. DoD/IG Memo, February 23, 1994 4. SAF/FM Memo, February 24, 1994, w/Indorsement 5. SAF/AA Memo, March 1, 1994, w/ March 16, 1994 Addendum 6. AF/IN Memo, March 14, 1994 7. AF/SE Memo, March 14, 1994 8. SAF/AQL Memo, March 22,1994 9. AF/XOWP Memo, March 9,1994 10. SAF/AAI Memo, March 10, 1994 11. AFHRA/CC Memo, March 8, 1994 12. AFOSI/HO Memo, May 11, 1994 13. List of Locations and Records Searched 14. HQ AAF "Issuance of Orders," June 5, 1947 15. Copy of Vandenberg's Appointment Book and Diary, July 7-9, 1947 16. July 9, 1947 Photos of Balloon Wreckage, Ft Worth Star Telegram 17. Signed Sworn Statement of Cavitt, May 24, 1994 18. Transcript of Cavitt Interview, May 24, 1994 19. Letter, July 8, 1946, Project Mogul 20. Signed Sworn Statement of Spilhaus, June 3, 1994 21. Signed Sworn Statement of Moore, June 8, 1994 22. Signed Sworn Statement of Trakowski, June 29, 1994 23. Transcript of Interview with Moore, June 8, 1994 24. Transcript of Interview with Trakowski, June 29, 1994 25. Illustration of Project Mogul "Balloon Trains" 26. Two Photos of Project Mogul "Balloon Trains" 27. Log Summary, NYU Constant Level Balloon Flights 28. List of Museums Contacted 29. Copy of Blueprint for "Pilot Balloon Target, NIL-307C/AP Assembly" 30. Signed Sworn Statement of Newton, July 21, 1994 31. Photos of UL-307C/AP Device, With Vintage Neoprene Balloon and Debris 32. Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings by 1LT James McAndrew 33. "Mensuration Working Paper," With Drawing and Photo --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: The Collective : Host D.U.F.O.N. : +31-43-260855 (2:284/313) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 892 of 987 From : Joachim Koch 2:2410/704.20 28 Apr 95 18:13:00 To : ALL 06 May 95 01:51:22 Subj : URGENT! NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ********************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* ********************************************************************** *Mr Santilli has postponed his invitation-only meeting of potential buyers of the (copies of the) footage to May 6th.* It is said that during this meeting parts or the whole rest of the so far unknown missing (film/video?)material should be presented. It was hoped to provide you with new details here around April 29th or 30st. This cannot happen now before May 7/8th. So watch out for mails with the subject: "URGENT! NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL". We would like to remind you again *to stay extremely cautious* with regards to this footage. As long as nothing is proven to be genuine it might be another attempt by "someone" to establish another "MJ12-like hoax". After the Air Force Report of Fall 1994 was clearly identified as another cover-up or to continue the old one "someone" might have looked for another strategy. Maybe "someone" has thought what went well one time may run the second time as well. But this time we have, among many other individual or combined efforts, The International Roswell Initiative and the Roswell Declaration. This document is signed by many thousands of people from all over ther world so far and day by day they become more. This time people are aware of the danger of a major hoax and this is because it will fail. For those who have missed parts of the material about the Roswell Declaration we shall post it here again on this bulletin board on April 30st. Joachim Koch Berlin, April 28th, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg ____________________________________________________________________________ The *International Roswell Initiative* was founded by *Kent Jeffrey* (USA), *Joachim Koch* and *Hans-Juergen Kyborg* (both Berlin, Germany) in 1994. It is officially greatly supported (among many others) by MUFON, CUFOS and FUFOR and became one of the most successful international grassroots efforts in Ufology. The central document is the "Roswell Declaration" which was published together with additional material in this bulletin board. If you have missed parts of the material or the Declaration itself please contact Joachim Koch via email. You my also look into the World Wide Web for: http://erau.db.erau.edu/~elston/petition.html and sign the declaration electronically. Thanks! Joachim Koch IN: koch@wad.fido.de --- CrossPoint v3.02 R * Origin: I'll see you on the dark side of the moon (2:2410/704.20) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 82 of 87 From : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464.12 04 May 95 22:12:00 To : All Subj : SOMEONE HAS SEEN THE FILM ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * This msg is forwarded from ALT.PARANET.UFO * Originally From: Don Allen in UseNet * To : All * Date: saturday 29 April 1995 21:39:04 1:2430/2112.3 - The Temples o, Springfield IL * Forwarded from "BAMA" * Originally by Don Allen * Originally to John Powell * Originally dated 29 Apr 1995, 10:08 > -=> Quoting Don Allen to All <=- >>For the movie, the producers shot some grainy black & white 16mm, >>documentary style footage of a Roswell crash type senario where >> military >>doctors perform an autopsy on several alien beings. According to the >>Unsolved researcher, the film stock was on fairly modern 16mm 400 ASA >> Agfa >>film stock (not very available to the U.S. military in 1947) > I thought Kodak verified the film... Guess what? Just when you thought this soap opera couldn't get any _more_ strange, it has. :-) I've received three phone calls from Dan Smith earlier today. He says he's spoken with Philip Mantle twice this morning. According to what Mantle told Smith and Smith told me (hearsay alert), Mantle was shown two additional film segments of 7 minutes each. It's said that the film speed appears to be normal, so it's claimed there's none of the jerkiness of slower fps. The two segments are purported to be the "Dallas autopsy" of a alleged Roswell crash alien body, supposedly the 2nd autopsy of the trio. The two segments show three people in a hospital-like environment. Two people are in what appears to be radiation suits, with a third person behind a glass partition looking on. The two dressed in the radiation suits are working on a humanoid body shown on a table. The body is human-like in appearance and has a height of between 5 to 6 feet with a head slightly larger than a human. Large, black eyes. Female genitalia but no breasts or nipples. 6 digits on hands and feet. No navel. No hair on the head or the body. Smith's impression to me was the body was possibly a hybrid, more human than what we call a "grey". Surgical instruments are shown. One of the two suited workers is shown taking notes. Mantle says that he can make out the name "Dr. Bronk" (Detlev Bronk?) on the heading of the notes as shown in the film. Incisions are made. One is made one up the middle of the front, and the heart and some intestines are removed. What appears to be a crystal is removed from the abdomen. Further incisions are shown on the head to remove skin samples and the skull is opened. A sample of the brain is extracted. This concludes what I've heard as the content of the two segments. Smith tells me there's some discontinuity in the two segments, with some "jumps" being supposedly evident. As for the authentication of the film itself, my understanding is that based on Smith's talk with Mantle, one canister of the film is to go to Kodak after May 5th, but only for a short period, perhaps a day. Smith told me that Mantle has verified the serial numbers/symbols on the film, but other than that, there's been no analysis carried out yet. Also, it's my understanding that some film segments will be shown at the British Museum next week with possibly some French, German and US media present. It was mentioned that there's plans to send the film to a private company for analysis on the image integrity. I don't know who as no name was mentioned so I have no further information on that. Based on what Smith told me, Mantle is hoping to get 90 minutes of film at _no cost_ for research purposes, but it's still up in the air about the broadcast rights. Supposedly, Santilli is going to provide this to Mantle after May 5th. If this pans out, my understanding is that Congressman Schiff might get a copy from Mantle, Kent Jeffries and possibly others. Smith seems to think that by next weekend, there may be a short film clip based on the segments appearing on the networks. Anyways, this is the latest in the saga. Make of it what you will. I don't have any further information available but I will be cc'ing this around for comments, so if anyone wishes to follow up on this, please be my guest. :-) Don cc: Fido UFO cc: alt.paranet.ufo cc: Night_Shift_CP cc: Night_Shift_Art-Bell -- Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Allen@p3.f2112.n2430.z1.FIDONET.ORG ====================================================================== Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/ Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services --- April V1.0+ * Origin: In Windows, no-one can hear you scream. (2:280/464.12) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 68 of 80 From : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464.12 06 May 95 18:50:00 To : All Subj : *** ROSWELL FILM TRUTH SO FAR *** ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ .MSGID: 2:280/464.12@FidoNet 454d2c82 * This msg is forwarded from ALT.ALIEN.VISITORS * Originally From: Huntja@vax.sbu.ac.uk in UseNet * To : All * Date: thursday 4 May 1995 15:34:06 From: huntja@vax.sbu.ac.uk This posting is to clarify the situation regarding the alleged "Film of Roswell" I spoke to Phillip Mantle, Director of Investigations for BUFORA lat night (3/5/95) and he clarified the situation as follows: A film which is allegedly that of the Roswell crash and subsequent alien autopsy does exist althugh BUFORA cannot comment on the validity of the film at the moment. The film has been known about for 2 years but due to certain personal reasons of the people involved, the full detals have not been released in the past. As part of a review of the Roswell movie which was released on video recently in the U.K. (not to be confused with the alleged film of the crash) Phillip Mantle contacted Mr Santilli, the current holder of the alleged film, to ask him if he still had the film. He confirmed that he still had the film and this information together with the review of the Roswell movie was placed in an article for the Sheffield Star newspaper. However this was noted by a press agency which then contacted BUFORA. Since then the news of the film has spread across the world. The film is due to be screened this Friday (5/5/95) in London at a private screening. Only invited guests will be allowed to attend. These guests inlude both international UFO research personnel and the international media. The Planned screening was due to be held in April but due to demand was moved to a new venue. People due to see the film include Reg Presley, Ken Jeffery and Roberto Pinnotti (sorry for any misspelling of the names!). There are a number of rumours which have been circulating that must be stopped: 1) "Kodak has examined the film and pronounced that it is not a fake". This is not true, however Kodak have agreed in principle to examine the film as have a private film company in London, but no examination has yet taken place. 2) "The BBC Horizon program has bought the film". This also is not true. The BBC have expressed an interest in the film but nobody has bought it yet. 3) "President Truman appears in the film". This cannot yet be confirmed or denied. People do appear in the film but are in suits (protective) and thus identity is not easy to establish. So what of the film? Well Phillip has seen 2 parts of the film and here are his comments on what he saw: Part 1: This is of very poor quality and there is no sound. It shows 2 men in white coats wh appear to be involved with an alien body. Part 2: This is of muchbetter quality and shows a full autopsy of an alien. The creature is in full view and is being investiagted by 2 men in protective suits. The suits only have small rectangular area for the men to see out of. In addition there is a 3rd person in the background who appears to be some sort of general surgeon. The alien is hairless, has a bloated abdomen and has spindly arms and legs. He/She/It is not particularly big althoug the exact size is hard to ascertain. It does have the typical black slanted eyes although these are not as big as some have suggested. In this part of the film a full autopsy takes place. The eyes turn out to be a type of "skin" which when removed reveal eyeballs underneath. The autopsy then continues with major organs being removed. Phillip Mantle and BUFORA are not making any claims, whether positive or negative about the validity of the film. BUFORA is investigating the subject, but until all investiagtions are complete no further comments on the usefulness of the film will be made. BUFORA are now planning to show the film (or at least part of it) at their annual conference which is being held in Sheffield on 19-20 August. BUFORA now have a sponsor for the conference, Sony Music, and a relaunch of "War of the Worlds" music by Jeff Wayne will be made at the conference. If you wish to receieve more information then please send an SAE to: Congress '95 1 Woodhall Drive Batley West Yorkshire England WF17 7SW. So until the film has been shown and the media have had their say, please do not add any more rumours to the already rampant list that is currently circulating. JH. --- April V1.0+ * Origin: I know nothing... I'm from Barcelona.... (2:280/464.12) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 71 of 80 From : Jan de Veen 2:283/726.42 06 May 95 15:06:00 To : All Subj : Roswell debunking 1/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ******************************DEEL 1 van 2************************************* Hallo Allemaal, 04-May-95 12:37, Jan Ruth wrote to ALL Subject: De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel 1-9 Bedankt, Jan, voor je posting van de eind 1994 door de USAF uitgegeven verklaring, geschreven door Colonel Richard Weaver, dat de resultaten bespreekt van een intern onderzoek dat gestart werd in reactie op Congressman Schiff's verzoek om openheid inzake Roswell. Ik had dit materiaal al, maar ik ben zeker dat er mensen zijn in deze area die deze officiele verklaring van de Amerikaanse regering inzake Roswell nog nooit onder ogen gekregen hadden... Om even duidelijk te maken wat er sindsdien allemaal gebeurd is het volgende: Zoals verwacht is er zeer verschillend op deze verklaring gereageerd. De die-hard sceptici omhelsden elkaar omdat zij nu eindelijk een door overheiszijde gesteunde verklaring hebben om de Roswell mythe voor eens en voor altijd naar het rijk de fabelen te verwijzen, terwijl de "UFO gemeenschap" geen overtuigend bewijs zag in de nieuwe verklaringen. Neutrale bronnen bevestigden inmiddels dat er wel degelijk rond 1947 een "Project Mogul" bestaan heeft, en dat de nieuwe verklaring van de USAF dus in ieder geval een kern van waarheid bevat. Maar, uiteraard, sloeg de UFO-community hard terug. Het grootste bezwaar dat zij aanvoerden tegen het rapport was dat het totaal geen antwoord gaf op de meeste beschuldigingen die door "Roswell aanhangers" gedaan zijn, nl: 1. Hoe dan de tientallen betrouwbare oogetuigen te weerleggen die in de loop der jaren naar voren zijn gekomen, en beweren op de crash-site aanwezig te zijn geweest waar de "vliegende schotel/weerballon/Project Mogul ballon" (wat het dan ook is) is neergestort, en waarvan allen die nog in leven zijn inmiddels hebben verklaard dat er geen sprake kan zijn dat het voorwerp een Project Mogul sonde geweest kan zijn, netzomin als een weerballon. Om verder nog maar te zwijgen van getuigen uit het leger zelf...zoals met name Major Jesse Marcel, de man die indertijd binned de Airforce leiding had inzake het onderzoek naar de zaak. Hij heeft o.a. beweerd het "debris" van de schotel te hebben gevlogen van Roswell AFB naar Wright-Patterson AFB, ook beweerde hij de lijken van de 'Greys' zelf te hebben gezien. Op zijn sterfbed (!!!) verklaarde hij nog dat er geen sprake kon zijn van een weerballon of van welk geheim overheidsproject dan ook... Hij kwam met zijn informtie al naar voren in 1978, voordat er ook nog maar een enkel boek was geschreven over het Roswell incident... Of wat te denken van de getuigenis van de begrafenisondernemer/lijkschouwer van Chaves County, Glenn Dennis, die nog steeds volhoudt dat het leger bij hem enkele doodskisten bestelde ter groote van kleuters... Deze eb vele andere getuigen kunnen toch niet allemaal worden afgedaan als fantasten en/of sensatiezoekers... Met name omdat de meesten van hen nou niet bepaald bekend staan als dusdanig, maar juist inmiddels redelijk bejaarde personen zijn, die weinig tot niets meer te winnen hebben bij het volhouden van een verzonnen verhaal waarmee ze zich slechts bloot stellen aan ridicule... Het grootste bezwaar van de UFO-gemeenschap tegen het "Weaver rapport" is dan ook dat het op geen enkele manier op dit soort getuigenverklaringen ingaat, laat staan er een bevredigen antwoord op geeft. --- Terminate 1.51/Pro * Origin: Mork calling Orson, come in, Orson... ;-) (2:283/726.42) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 72 of 80 From : Jan de Veen 2:283/726.42 06 May 95 19:05:00 To : All Subj : Roswell debunking 2/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ *****************************DEEL 2 van 2************************************** 2. Zowel Militaire experts als oud-militairen ten tijde van Roswell houden vol dat, als er inderdaad een spionage ballon van het type Mogul zou zijn neergestort bij Roswell, de USAF zeker niet gehandeld zou hebben als het in juli 1947 heeft gedaan. Veel eerder zou men meteen hebben toegegeven dat het hier om een geheim project ging waarmee de russen in de gaten werden gehouden, zonder (uit veiligheidsoverwegingen) op de technische details of het type van de sonde te zijn ingegaan. Zo'n verklaring zou namelijk zowel indruk hebben gemaakt op de eigen bevolking als op de Russen. Vergeet niet, het was de koude oorlog, waarbij psychologische oorlogvoering een grote rol speelde. De officiele "weerballon" verklaring die men destijds t.a.v. Roswell uitgaf (en bedenk hierbij steeds dat het ALLEREERSTE bericht -een door Roswell AFB Col. William Blancard aan PIO (public Information Officer) Walter Haut gedicteerd berichtje- wel degelijk sprak van een neergestorte vliegende schotel) blijft, hoe je het ook wendt of keert, een weinig doordachte paniekreactie van de RAAF (zoals de USAF toen nog heette), wat slechts veroorzaakt kan zijn door iets dat de RAAF verraste. Voor "gewone" crashes en crash-retrieval had (en heeft) men immers bij het leger altijd draaiboeken klaarliggen... Walter Haut overigens, de soldaat die het allereerste persbericht doorgaf aan radiostation KGLF, werkt tegenwoordig als vrijwilliger in het UFO Museum te Roswell, een cetrum dat gewijd is aan het verzamelen van informatie over de Roswell "crash" en andere UFO incidenten. Zijn reactie op het USAF raport was al even vernietigend: "I feel very strongly about it," Mr. Haut said. Referring to those who made the original UFO claim, he said, "We're not talking about flaky people." - Dallas Morning News, 9 Sept. 1994 3. Het originele USAF rapport, dat voor de publicatie ter inzage lag in kamer 1A518 van de bibliotheek van het Pentagon, bevatte (volgens o.a. de bibliothecaresse van die afdeling) niet 25 paginas zoals de versie die uiteindelijk aan de pers vrijgegeven werd, en die Jan Ruth hier gepost heeft, maar minstens 1000 paginas !!! Wat stond er in die veel langere versie ?.... Ook Congressman Steven Schiff van de staat New Mexico, die verantwoordelijk was voor de vragen die tot het onderzoek hebben geleid (toch ook al geen man die rijp is voor het gesticht), heeft inmiddels verklaard allerminst tevreden te zijn met de manier waarop het onderzoek heeft plaatsgehad. Er was op een bepaald moment zelfs even sprake van een "Congressional hearing" inzake Roswell, maar dat is (uiteraard zou ik bijna zeggen) weer op de lange baan geschoven ...;-) Met andere woorden...wordt zeker nog wel weer vervolgd... In ieder geval heeft deze verklaring de volgende significante waarde voor de UFOlogie... Voor het eerst heeft de Amerikaanse overheid nu officieel toegegeven dat de officiele verklaring inzake Roswell in 1947 -dat het ging om een doodgewone weerballon die neergestort zou zijn, waarbij men destijds zelfs zo ver ging om de pers foto's te laten nemen van Gen. Ramey en Col. DuBose met een weerballon- een leugen was. Aleen al deze toegave op zichzelf heeft het er niet makkelijker op gemaakt voor de regering van de V.S. om het Roswell incident effectief te debunken. Als men immers het eigen volk EENS heeft voorgelogen, waarom dan niet.... Als je dan ook nog bedenkt dat volgens een recente enquete (1994) meer dan 60 procent van de Amerikaanse bevolking weinig tot geen vertrouwen zegt te hebben in de integriteit van de eigen regering (of het hier nu om een van Democrats of Republicans gaat) in het algemeen, is het in ieder geval duidelijk dat er sprake is van een vertouwenscrisis. Hartelijke groeten, Jan de Veen --- Terminate 1.51/Pro * Origin: Mork calling Orson, come in, Orson... ;-) (2:283/726.42) Ä [14] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 79 of 80 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 06 May 95 08:54:00 To : Jan Ruth Subj : Re: De Waarheid en alleen de Waarheid over Roswell Deel1 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ -=> Quoting Jan Ruth to ALL <=- JR> JR> ======================================================================= JR> ==== JR> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- JR> ---- SAF/PAM PENTAGON JR> No. 235-M Sept. 8, 1994 Ik heb de hele rest maar gedelete. Luister eens, dit rapport is het rapport van de luchtmacht wat VOL met gaten en foute redenaties zit en wat afgaat op enkele getuigen. Ondertussen zijn verschillende stukken hierover geschreven die bewijzen dat dit hele rapport een grote fantasie is. Aan de thread line en aan jouw belachelijk berichtjes te zien in de internationale UFO area, schijn jij ook vlug van mening te veranderen. Eerst beweren dat UFOs aliens zijn, dan weer de chinezen dan weer hierop tergukomen en dan weer zeggen dat alles wat met UFOs te maken heeft onzin is. Dat is natuurlijk belachelijke onzin. Dit is niet de waarheid over roswell en dat weet je net zo goed als ik. Wie was ook weer degene die een maand geleden hier die brieven en artikels van congreslid S. Shiff heeft gepost over Roswell? Gebeurt dat vaak bij jouw, die menings schommelingen? Jean ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 937 of 983 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 09 May 95 18:09:02 To : All 12 May 95 01:42:42 Subj : Alleged Roswell Archive Film ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 5 May 1995, 15:30 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 3 May 95 15:15:43 GMT Message-ID: <0098FCF9.9AE53EB6.70@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo I received a fax this morning from Tony Dodd, Director of Investigations at Quest International, publishers of UFO Magazine (UK). I had mentioned to Tony the allegations that the alleged Roswell archive film was actually footage shot for a Brazilian TV documentary and he confirms this is the second occasion he has been directed to Brazilian film companies. Quest have the resources to investigate this in more detail and Tony states that he has contacts in Brazil who are currently doing so. His opinion is that "I have no doubt whatsoever that this film is a fake from many enquiries I have made". Should these allegations prove to be true, there will be damning consequences, especially for BUFORA, and the longer they are seen to promote this film, the more damning those consequences will be. BUFORA can be contacted at bufora@stairway.co.uk and you may wish to remind them that if they are to be involved with Friday's "media conference", they represent not only their own interests, but those of many others. As Tony says, "Like you, I feel that this could set Ufology back years, if allowed to proceed unchecked". I trust BUFORA will publicly urge caution concerning the authenticity of this film and will not be so irresponsible as to promote it further until these allegations, at least, are proved to be unfounded. Cheers, James. --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 938 of 983 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 09 May 95 18:09:04 To : All 12 May 95 01:42:44 Subj : Alleged Roswell Archive Film ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 6 May 1995, 19:56 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 4 May 95 14:26:09 GMT Message-ID: <0098FDBB.D8C4F1E6.170@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Don Allen commented: >Guess what? Just when you thought this soap opera couldn't get any _more_ >strange, it has. :-) Unfortunately, it's potentially more of a tragedy than a soap opera. I spoke for an hour or so last night with Graham Birdsall, Editor of UFO Magazine and discussed this entire matter at length. Graham stated that Quest International have been "inundated" with media enquiries concerning Friday's press conference and indicated that this was possibly going to be a sizable press conference, probably the largest ever UFO related press conference in the U.K. Graham confirmed that Quest's viewpoint was that of a damage limitation exercise and they were at pains to warn the media to be very cautious concerning anything that may be claimed about this film. Sadly, only the Sunday People newspaper seemed to appreciate what Quest are implying. Graham has spoken to several people who know Santilli and have had previous dealings with him. Apparently, "con-man" would be a compliment. I was also advised of several major flaws within the footage which has already been shown, but it's difficult to judge such claims without having seen the film. What was clear is that Quest are bracing themselves for a backlash and their response will simply be "look, we told you so". What was even clearer was the dismay that BUFORA and Philip Mantle in particular have been grossly irresponsible in promoting this film with little, if any, objectivity and that financial considerations seemed to be paramount. Graham also mentioned that the current promotion of the Roswell TV film, just released on video in the U.K., has supporting material provided by BUFORA and this includes fake photographs. When Graham challenged Philip Mantle about the integrity of this, Philip apparently shrugged his shoulders and said, "What do I care". I don't wish to become involved in slander, but, without my asking, Graham said I could quote him on this. There was much more to be concerned about, including the results of Stanton Friedman's investigations and his discussion with Santilli. For example, according to Friedman, on the date that President Truman is allegedly shown in Roswell, he was actually launching a ship in California. There is, to my knowledge, as yet no concrete proof that this film has a perfectly mundane origin. Conversely, there is little evidence, if any, that it is archive film from Roswell. A press conference at this stage is unquestionably therefore irresponsible and we may be at a watershed in terms of what little credibility UFOlogy has left, certainly as far as the U.K. is concerned. As Graham said, "We have 36 hours left to try and do something." I make it less than 24 now. Tony Dodd has promised to let me know the results of current investigations in Brazil and I will of course pass on any further, relevant information. Cheers, James. --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 705 of 742 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 09 May 95 18:38:08 To : All 12 May 95 01:42:46 Subj : Roswell Film Shown in London ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "BAMA" * Originally by John Powell * Originally to All * Originally dated 9 May 1995, 7:10 * Originally By: chrisw * Originally To: All * Originally Re: Roswell Film Shown in London * Original Area: ParaNet(sm) UFO Echo * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12 OS/2 From: chrisw@odyssey.ody.com (chrisw) Date: 7 May 95 21:01:16 GMT Organization: Odyssey Online Message-ID: <3ojces$sr1@odyssey.ody.com> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Transcribed fax message from researcher Colin Andrews: The so-called ROSWELL MOVIE material PUBLIC RELEASE Meeting at the Museum of London London, UK - Friday 5th May 1995 Mr. Ray Santilli invited media and researchers to a showing of the Roswell film at the Museum of London, on 5th May 1995. Colin Andrews flew to London from his Connecticut home to attend, having been invited to an earlier private viewing of some of the material in January this year. Colin has just returned to his UK office from London and sent this report: The meeting started at 1.00 PM, in the lecture theatre. We arrived at 12.30 PM. Many familiar faces were there, some as follows: George Wingfield Robert Irving Bob Kiviat (Fox/Paramount Films) Phillip Mantel (BUFORA) Michael Hesemann (Germany) Nick Pope (MOD - Ministry of Defence - UK Government) Carlton TV - UK BBC radio 1 - UK Daily Express UK NBC - USA Many other media Reg Presley (Troggs pop group and friend of Colin) Pete (Troggs) Ray Santilli (Film owner) Harry.... (Santilli's accountant) His office staff Researcher from Italy and Germany John Holman - UK Kent Jeofries - USA total approx. 100 Everybody was frisked and NO cameras or recorders, etc. were allowed inside the theatre. The showing started at 5 mins. past one with no introduction; the lights were simply turned off. The film started by saying: "The film you are about to see is taken from 16 mm original films on 3 minute-long canisters and was purchased from the person who filmed it. All copyright is with Merlin Communications Ltd." [Description of film:] At a table in a well-equipped [operating] theatre, two people in white outfits and hoods and visors over eyes (all-in-one suits) were inspecting the being. A third person was observing from behind a glass screen in the wall of the theatre; he/she was also wearing an outfit with a larger glass visor. One of the surgeons looked closely at the body and was gesturing where he/she would be cutting and pulling the legs apart inspecting the vagina. The female being had no breasts. It had five fingers and a thumb [6 digits] on each hand and RP says he counted six toes also (I could only see 5.) The ears were smaller than ours and located lower on the head than ours, level with the mouth. The head was larger (especially behind) and the eyes were larger, at least as big as golf balls. It had a small nose and small mouth, which was open. The body was very muscle-bound with very short, stocky legs and larger human-looking feet. The belly was very large and looked 8 month's pregnant, which it was not. The ears had the same major spiral trough as ours but was smooth and featureless above, more simple and basic than ours. The surgeon cut from below the neck/chin down to the vagina and I believe a tee-line outwards across the lower stomach. The chest and stomach were exposed and the heart removed and placed into a tray with other substances from around that immediate area. The lungs were removed from behind into another tray. The camera was handheld, and would on occasion move in close, losing focus in so doing. The flesh and attachments to the organs being removed were moving and responding to those actions in a very convincing manner -- as if real. There were small amounts of fluids running down the side of the body when the body was opened and organs removed. The colour of the liquid was dark and bloodlike. After the organs were cut out with a scalpel the surgeon cut a continuous line around the middle of the head and I think over the top, and peeled back the skin from rear to front over the eyes, revealing the scalp. He took a saw and cut across the head and removed the brain with other material and placed it into another tray. Before the brain procedure started the surgeon removed a black lens layer from each eye, revealing white eyes just like ours under it. The eyes had pupils like ours which were looking up into the head (as a deceased human would.) The single black layer of material was slightly disc-shaped to fit over the eye pupil. It was as if a filter lens/contact lens had been fitted into the eye. The right leg had a serious open wound, exposing the major bones from the lower part of the upper leg to middle calf area. The surgeon moved the leg, inspecting the joint. A large clock was on the wall to the side of the table and time I believe began at 10.30 and was seen again around 11.25. A wall-mounted telephone was visible, as were glass bottles and medical instruments. The body and procedures looked very authentic and in my opinion would have been hard to fake, but perhaps not impossible with current techniques. At the end of the film, the lights came on and with no comment people were expected to leave. I was talking with Nick Pope (MOD) when a large group gathered at the rear of the theatre around Ray Santilli and minders who were already saying he will not answer questions and [that] the photographer is 80 odd [years old] and does not want the questions and exposure. No other questions were answered and he was whisked out with the media and myself staying with him. I shook his hand earlier and he acknowledged me. I asked him as we all crowded around him, "Will you be seeing us in your office?" He said, "Yes, later." A TV interviewer said, "How am I supposed to interview you without being given access to any other material?" When I was interviewed by BBC radio 1 outside, they told me that BBC TV had purchased a small amount of film and would be showing it next month. It is believed that a major U.S. media company has made a bid. A fax bid was received on 3rd May from a group of Attornies in Washington representing an unnamed client (possibly U.S. Government) offering 1.8 million dollars for all materials to be returned to the USA. Mr. Takano (CA contact in Japan) faxed me in USA thanking me for my help putting them in touch with Santilli and said Santilli was going to fly to Hong Kong on ... May to show them the film. Update to follow later. 6th May 1995 - Colin Andrews UK. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä [19] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 68 of 71 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 10 May 95 11:30:00 To : All Subj : ROSWELL FILM 1/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ From snet@world.std.com Fri 05 May 95 20:25:09 Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 16:32:19 +0100 From: James Easton Subject: Press Conference Lines: 66 BBC Radio have, literally, just broadcast an article on today's press conference. The article featured a radio journalist who was at the conference and this is a brief summary of his report: It was a strange event...people were frisked before entering. There was no introduction whatsoever, the lights dimmed and flickery scenes appeared on screen. The film showed 2 men wearing white surgical clothing and "hoods", resembling a beekeeper's covering, with a third man looking through a window. You could see a clock and a telephone and a sign which said "Danger". On a black slab you could see an "alien" with a large head. It was extremely skinny and looked absurd. One of it's legs was charred. It looked like something out of a 50's B-movie. The film was blurred and looked amateurish. I found it exceedingly boring to be honest. There were supposed to be shots of a crash site but we didn't get to see those. The "surgeons" faces were not visible and neither were any surgical instruments. [END] A brief interview then followed with a reporter from the Sunday People newspaper and he said, "I don't really believe it, but I'll be saying, "here it is, make your own mind up"." A reporter from NBC also commented that "the footage is certainly compelling", but he also will leave it to others to judge. Other comments from people present at the press conference: "The footage is almost perfect, almost too legitimate." "It looked like they could be actors, it looked like it was a double bluff." "Even the person who owns the film says he is not sure it is genuine, so how can I be." "There is clearly a strong financial motive behind it." "I can't believe anyone could take it seriously." "It will no doubt receive a mention in the press, along with a few jokes..." There was no mention of BUFORA's involvement. This is simply a brief update and you will no doubt shortly have access to a full media report of exactly what transpired today. Cheers, James. --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä [19] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 69 of 71 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 10 May 95 11:30:00 To : All Subj : ROSWELL FILM 2/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ From snet@world.std.com Fri 05 May 95 20:26:30 Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 16:26:23 BST From: A R Dickinson Subject: Roswell film showing report Lines: 24 Dear James, just received a resume from some of the journalists in attendance at the alleged Roswell autopsy shown today. According to NBC crew a 20 minute excerpt was shown which only depicted a poor quality image of the supposed autopsy itself in a poorly lit space. A clock, telephone and "Danger" sign was visible in the background. The greyish slab upon which the "alien" was placed, displayed a human-type body with almond-shaped eyes and a "charred" leg. The feet and hands were reported to be human-like with phalanges. "Surgeons appeared like hazy Klu Klux Clan- likeimages and no doctor's faces were visible. Close ups were mainly "bloody". NBC conclude that the viewing was "compelling", the 16 mm nature appearing "legitimate" although resembling a 50's movie. The Sunday Express hack claimed that for him it was like watching a "Madamme Tussaud's model surrounded by actors, shot with an amateur camera". Chris Allen and Jerome Clerk speaking on BBC Radio were dissapointed not to see anything other than what appeared to them to be part of "old European B-movie cuts compiled". They likewise commented on the lack of human faces. No New Mexican desert scenes were shown, nor was Truman made visible. British Press will run stills tomorrow, Sat 6th May. Update as appropriate, Tony. ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä [22] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 68 of 80 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 13 May 95 18:06:00 To : All Subj : USAF ROSWELL RAPPORT DEBUNKED 1/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The Air Force Report on Roswell: An Absence of Evidence by Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney (IUR, September/October 1994, Volume 19, Number 5. International UFO Reporter, Copyright 1994 by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, 2457 West Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659, published bimonthly with a subscription rate of $25/yr.) As almost every reader of IUR must know by now, on September 8 of this year, the Air Force released a twenty-three page report, entitled Report of Air Force Research Regarding the "Roswell Incident." This report is dated July 1994, contains thirty-three attachments numbering hundreds of additional pages, and purports to "stand as the final official Air Force response regarding this matter." The release of this report and its conclusion - that the Roswell debris came from a top-secret balloon project - was widely reported in the media, including by major television networks and the New York Times, which ran a cover story on the report in its Sunday edition. Despite all this attention, the details of the Air Force report and conclusion have not always been made clear. In this article, we will explain the Air Force conclusion and the reasons they provide to support their theory about Roswell. We will also explain why the Roswell research community finds the Air Force hypothesis so weak and internally inconsistent by focusing on the testimony Air Force investigators gathered from a few carefully-chosen witnesses. The impetus for the Air Force report was the initiation of a General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation early this year, at the request of Rep. Stephen Schiff from New Mexico, as reported in the March/April issue of IUR. It is unusual for a government agency that is currently being investigated by the GAO to release a report to the public, as well as to the GAO, long before a GAO inquiry is complete. However, that is only one of the many oddities surrounding this report, as we demonstrate. Whatever its content, the Air Force report marks a milestone in ufology: Not since Project Blue Book was closed in 1969 has any agency of the government commented at such length on any UFO incident. That the Air Force was forced to do so says much about the depth of investigation and evidence that affirms the unusual nature of the debris recovered near Roswell in July 1947. It is impossible to print the report in its entirety in these pages, but we begin by reproducing the Executive Summary to provide a clear statement of the Air Force position. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The "Roswell Incident" refers to an event that supposedly happened in July, 1947, wherein the Army Air Forces (AAF) allegedly recovered remains of a crashed "flying disc" near Roswell, New Mexico. In February, 1994, the General Accounting Office (GAO), acting on the request of a New Mexico Congressman, initiated an audit to attempt to locate records of such an incident and to determine if records regarding it were properly handled. Although the GAO effort was to look at a number of government agencies, the apparent focus was on the Air Force. SAF/AAZ [Security and Special Program Oversight, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force], as the Central Point of Contact for the GAO in this matter, initiated a systematic search of current Air Force offices as well as numerous archives and records centers that might help explain this matter. Research revealed that the "Roswell Incident" was not even considered a UFO event until the 1978-1980 time frame. Prior to that, the incident was dismissed because the AAF originally identified the debris recovered as being that of a weather balloon. Subsequently, various authors wrote a number of books claiming that, not only was debris from an alien spacecraft recovered, but also the bodies of the craft's alien occupants. These claims continue to evolve today and the Air Force is now routinely accused of engaging in a "cover-up" of this supposed event. The research located no records at existing Air Force offices that indicated any "cover-up" by the USAF or any indication of such a recovery. Consequently, efforts were intensified by Air Force researchers at numerous locations where records for the period in question were stored. The records reviewed did not reveal any increase in operations, security, or any other activity in July, 1947, that indicated any such unusual event may have occurred. Records were located and thoroughly explored concerning a then-TOP SECRET balloon project, designed to attempt to monitor Soviet nuclear tests, known as Project Mogul. Additionally, several surviving project personnel were located and interviewed, as was the only surviving person who recovered debris from the original Roswell site in 1947, and the former officer who initially identified the wreckage as a balloon. Comparison of all information developed or obtained indicated that the material recovered near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device and most likely from one of the Mogul balloons that had not been previously recovered. Air Force research efforts did not disclose any records of the recovery of any "alien" bodies or extraterrestrial materials. ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä [22] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 69 of 80 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 13 May 95 18:07:00 To : All Subj : USAF ROSWELL RAPPORT DEBUNKED 2/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ There are two important points to note immediately. It is clear from this summary that the Air Force couldn't find any physical evidence that proves or documentation that clearly states that a balloon from Project Mogul was recovered by rancher Mac Brazel or officers from the 509th Bomb Group. Second, the Air Force has no Mogul balloon material from 1947 to show to witnesses to provide a positive identification; given the many years since the project ended, it is not surprising that no material can be located. Still, without such confirmation, the Air Force explanation relies upon inference from verbal testimony, not solid, hard evidence. THE AIR FORCE CONCLUSION Given this lack of evidence, how can the Air Force conclude that the debris near Roswell was from Project Mogul? The key statement in the Executive Summary is the phrase "Comparison of all information developed or obtained." This statement does not say "Comparison of all information available" about the incident, and that is the crucial omission (and admission) of the Air Force investigators. The Air Force certainly read almost all major publications on Roswell, including books by Randle and Schmitt, Friedman and Berliner, and the Roswell Report published by CUFOS, so they were aware of the many witnesses interviewed by the investigators. Nevertheless, they confined their interviews to only two former Air Force personnel: Sheridan Cavitt, the Counter-Intelligence Corps officer who accompanied Jesse Marcel to the ranch site; and Irving Newton, the weather officer at Carswell AFB in Fort Worth who identified the debris in Ramey's office as a standard weather balloon. They also interviewed three surviving members of Project Mogul. Given the many, many persons who have been identified as firsthand or secondhand Roswell witnesses, that the Air Force interviewed only five people is truly astonishing. Two key former military personnel whom they did not interview were General Arthur Exon, who confirmed the presence of two sites and a gouge in the ground, and Jesse Marcel, Jr., who handled the debris his father brought home. Nor did they try to interview any of the other living military witnesses mentioned in the two books by Randle and Schmitt, including Walter Haut, who distributed the press release and still lives in Roswell. Many Roswell witnesses have passed away, but interviews with some were recorded before their deaths. One would expect that the Air Force investigators would be interested in such material, but they never requested the tapes on which Bill Rickett, former second-in-command to Cavitt, discussed his knowledge of the crash and recovery, or the tapes on which Edwin Easley, Provost Marshall at Roswell in 1947, admitted that he was still sworn to secrecy about the event (which would not be true for Project Mogul after all these years). Except for Project Mogul personnel, the Air Force also decided not to interview civilians with knowledge of the event, including Glenn Dennis, the mortician who claims he talked to a nurse who assisted with autopsies on alien bodies; Bill Brazel, son of Mac Brazel; or Loretta Proctor, a former neighbor of Mac, who saw some of the debris and talked to Mac about it. The Air Force's explanation for their curious lack of interest in certain witnesses is explained on page eight of the report: While the historical document search was in progress, it was decided to attempt to locate and interview several persons identified as still living who could possibly answer questions generated by the research. . . . Again, the focus was on interviewing persons that could address specific issues raised by research and no consideration was given to try and locate every alleged witness claimed to have been contacted by the various authors. For example, one of the interviewees thought vital to obtain an official signed, sworn statement from was Sheridan Cavitt, Lt Col, USAF (Retired) who is the last living member of the three persons universally acknowledged to have recovered material from the Foster Ranch. Others were also interviewed as information developed. We surely couldn't expect the Air Force to interview every person named in the literature on Roswell, but to have interviewed only five persons calls into question the serious intention and true goal of the investigation. The Air Force investigators did examine thousands of pages of documents. They found no mention of the Roswell incident and the recovery of any debris, except known documents such as the FBI telex of July 8, 1947. Nor, as noted above, did they find any documents that conclusively linked Project Mogul to the Roswell debris, even when they obtained private records and, in one instance, a professional diary of A. P. Crary, another Project Mogul staffer. How, then, did the Air Force decide that a Project Mogul balloon was the source of the Roswell debris? Even though their reasoning is not laid out this neatly in the report, here are the key facts as the Air Force sees them: ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä [22] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 70 of 80 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 13 May 95 18:07:00 To : All Subj : USAF ROSWELL RAPPORT DEBUNKED 3/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 1. Their search of official records turned up no "information that the 'Roswell Incident' was a UFO event." Nor was there any evidence for the existence of any classified program that is concerned with the storage or exploitation of the debris from Roswell, assuming it was from an alien spacecraft. 2. There is "no indication in official records from the period that there was heightened military operational or security activity which should have been generated if this was, in fact, the first recovery of materials and/or persons from another world." 3. Project Mogul was flying instruments from Alamogordo Army Air Field (now Holloman Air Force Base) whose purpose was classified top secret. These instruments were flown on huge balloon trains composed of many balloons and radar reflectors and so would have provided a substantial amount of potentially unusual debris. 4. Sheridan Cavitt claimed, in his interview of May 1994, that he immediately recognized the debris as part of a balloon. 5. Irving Newton, in July of this year, and consistent with what he has maintained all along, stated that what he saw in General Ramey's office was debris from a balloon. 6. The story about the Roswell event in the July 9 edition of the Roswell Daily Record, quoting Mac Brazel, provides a description of the debris that is reasonably consistent with Mogul balloon material. 7. The photos of debris taken in General Ramey's office are consistent with material from a balloon and radar reflector, and Mogul staffers shown the photos felt the material could have been from one of their balloons. 8. _Some_ of the witness testimony is consistent with material from Mogul balloon material, such as the alleged use of a purplish-pink tape with symbols on it to hold the assembly together. WHAT ROSWELL WAS NOT Before reviewing the testimony and reasoning the Air Force used in the report, we note that the Air Force investigation actually supports the work of Randle and Schmitt, who have previously been able to show that the Roswell object could not have been a V-2 rocket, an experimental aircraft or aircraft crash, or an atomic accident of some kind. The Air Force found no evidence that the Roswell incident was caused by any of these terrestrial sources, which is further proof of the quality of prior investigation on Roswell by UFO researchers. The upshot of this elimination of other terrestrial sources by the Air Force is that there remains only one possible conventional source of the Roswell debris: a Project Mogul balloon train. PROJECT MOGUL Although reports in the media, and the Air Force report itself, seem to indicate that the balloon found near Roswell was a top-secret Mogul balloon, the story is more complicated than that. Project Mogul was designed to determine whether acoustic devices could detect atmospheric shock waves from Soviet nuclear explosions. In 1947 the Soviets had not yet successfully exploded an atomic device, but we knew they were working to develop this capability. Since it was at that time not possible to fly spy planes easily over Soviet territory, we needed another long-range method of monitoring their atomic tests, and one idea was a balloon-borne, low-frequency acoustic device that was developed by personnel connected with New York University. The project was eventually abandoned when the concept was found to be unworkable. Several flights were made in June and July of 1947 that could conceivably be the source of the Roswell debris. Two types of flights were conducted by the project. One type was a test of the actual Mogul device and associated instrumentation; the other was labeled a "service flight" by Project Engineer Charles Moore and was not always logged. All flights seem to have been accounted for, in one way or another, except for Flights 2 through 4, and Flight 9. Although Flight 9 was much closer in time to the recovery of debris, the Air Force suggests that Flight 4 was the source of the debris. Given the existing Mogul records, it is clear that Flight 4 would have been launched no later than June 4. We return to this point below. These earlier flights used neoprene meteorological balloons. The report notes that "Professor Moore stated that the neoprene balloons were susceptible to degradation in the sunlight, turning from a milky white to a dark brown. He described finding remains of balloon trains with reflectors and payloads that had landed in the desert: the ruptured and shredded neoprene would 'almost look like dark gray or black flakes or ashes after exposure to the sun for only a few days.'" To remain at constant altitude, a Mogul balloon actually consisted of several balloons, as shown on the front cover of this issue. This multi-balloon array with associated radar reflectors, the Air Force suggests, came down on the Foster ranch and was found by Mac Brazel on June 14. They base this date on the story in the July 9 Roswell Daily Record, where Brazel is quoted at length. In fact, the Air Force relies heavily upon this newspaper story, the photos in Ramey's office, and their interviews with Cavitt and Mogul personnel. ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä [22] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 71 of 80 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 13 May 95 18:07:00 To : All Subj : USAF ROSWELL RAPPORT DEBUNKED 4/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ THE REPORT'S INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES One way to criticize and expose the weaknesses of the Air Force investigation is to demonstrate the implausibility of certain conclusions or statements. Another is to bring evidence to bear from other witnesses and sources that undermines the evidence presented in the report. A third, which we pursue in this section, is to show that there are serious problems of contradictory testimony and evidence within the report itself that call into question the Mogul explanation. To keep this article from running on endlessly, we focus here only on the most glaring inconsistencies. Extent of the debris. Sheridan Cavitt's signed statement to Colonel Richard Weaver claims "The area of this debris was very small, about 20 feet square." The July 9 newspaper article that the Air Force uses as evidence quotes Brazel as stating that "The rubber [from the balloon] was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter." These statements can't be made to match. One of them must be wrong. General appearance of the debris. Flight 4, if it was the cause of the debris, must have lain in the sun for at least ten days (from June 4 to June 14). Professor Charles Moore stated flatly that after some exposure to the sun, neoprene would turn into "dark gray or black flakes or ashes." Neither Cavitt in his interview, nor Brazel in the newspaper story described finding this type of debris, even though the sun in June in New Mexico is quite intense at the high altitude of the Foster ranch. Once again, key witnesses provide contradictory testimony. Type of balloon. Brazel told the newspaper reporters from the Daily Record that "he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these." This statement has never been possible to square with the original Air Force explanation that a weather balloon was the source of the Roswell debris. It also remains difficult to reconcile with the new balloon explanation because Flight 4 did not consist of any unusual balloon material, despite the highly classified nature of Mogul. Flight 4 simply consisted of several standard balloons. This is evident as well from the testimony gathered from Irving Newton (assuming he was viewing debris from Flight 4), who stated that "this was a balloon and a RAWIN target [the radar reflector]." Additionally, in his signed statement made during his interview, Cavitt claimed that "I remember recognizing this material as being consistent with a weather balloon." The Air Force can't have it both ways. Brazel said the stuff did not resemble a weather balloon; Cavitt and Newton say it did. Symbols on the debris. According to Colonel Albert Trakowski, the Air Force project officer for Mogul, a purplish-pink tape with flower and heart symbols on it was used to hold some of the flimsy Mogul balloon train together. In his newspaper interview, Brazel does mention "some tape with flowers printed upon it" that had been used in the construction. However, Cavitt, who must have had a good, long look at the debris during the recovery, stated at one point that "I do not remember any writing at all on the thing [debris]." Even later, after being further prompted by Colonel Weaver, the interviewer, he still said, "I don't remember anything like that." If Cavitt's memory is correct, a major part of the Air Force evidence is discredited. And if we are to discount his testimony on this point, why should we accept his statements about other aspects of the event? Once again, we have contradictory evidence and testimony within the Air Force report, requiring us to accept testimony selectively from one source or another if we are to agree with the Air Force explanation. Many other oddities could be mentioned, but one more must suffice. Cavitt said that he never met Brazel, but he also admitted recovering material from the debris field. One of us (MR) knows full well how difficult it is to find the debris field without guidance from a local. There is no way that Marcel and Cavitt could have driven from Roswell to the debris field without being shown the way - all the way - by Mac Brazel. That being the case, then Cavitt certainly did meet Brazel. If his memory is so poor about such an obvious fact, what else is he misremembering or still not telling? THE REPORT'S LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES The most glaring, we believe, are the radically different evaluations of the debris by Marcel and Colonel Blanchard, commanding officer at Roswell Army Air Field. If Cavitt so easily recognized the debris as a downed balloon, as did Irving Newton in Fort Worth, why didn't Marcel and Blanchard? There is no logical explanation, especially because we have to assume that Cavitt and Marcel did not stand mute on the debris field, but instead talked about the material and its possible origin. And if they talked at all, then Marcel and Blanchard should at least have been cautious about going public. ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä [22] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 72 of 80 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 13 May 95 18:07:00 To : All Subj : USAF ROSWELL RAPPORT DEBUNKED 5/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The Air Force, in its report, is aware of the difficulty of explaining Blanchard's and Marcel's actions. The best they can suggest is "that there was over-reaction by Colonel Blanchard and Major Marcel." Over-reaction indeed! Now there's an understatement. The boys at Roswell put out a press release, informing the world that the balloon they captured was a flying disc and jeopardizing the security of Project Mogul, even though the head counterintelligence officer has told them the debris is from a balloon, and the best explanation is "over-reaction." This explanation is made even more ludicrous by the successful careers that Marcel, and especially Blanchard, had in the Air Force after this monumental blunder, which should have resulted in instant demotion for them if their actions were what the Air Force is now claiming. It is clear from their testimony that neither Moore nor Athelstan Spilhaus, former director of the NYU Balloon Project, heard of the Roswell incident until approached by investigators. This is simply not believable if the Roswell incident was caused by one of the Project Mogul balloon flights. The events at Roswell must have been a notorious and embarrassing incident for the Army Air Force. For security reasons, it is inconceivable that key Mogul personnel were not told the Roswell debris was definitely a Mogul flight. There would undoubtably be discussions about better security arrangements after this well-publicized farce (which came close to blowing Mogul's cover). Yet Moore did not remember that Mogul had caused the Roswell incident when Bill Moore interviewed him around 1980, and Spilhaus says he was unaware of the incident until contacted this year by the Air Force. That the Air Force does not address this issue is very troubling. A third point which doesn't make much sense, if the Air Force theory is correct, is that Jesse Marcel and his family kept some of the debris after the incident and even showed it to the Cavitts. Mary Cavitt, Sheridan Cavitt's wife, sat in on the Air Force interview, just as she had done during Randle and Schmitt's interviews. At two points, she stated that Jesse brought out material when the Cavitts were visiting. After her interjection, Cavitt himself said, "I remember. He could have had some there at the house and it was, it looked like a foil of some sort, and he could have tried to burn that and it didn't burn very well. I don't know." Look closely at Cavitt's statement. First he said he remembered. Then he qualified his statements with the word "could," and finally he ended with "I don't know." This sounds to us like a man forced by the admissions of his wife to discuss an issue he would have preferred to avoid. The key question is this: If Jesse Marcel knew that the material he and Cavitt recovered was from a balloon, either weather or Mogul, would he have kept some of the debris around the house and brought it out and still played around with it, as if there was something special about it? Obviously not, if the debris was only from a standard balloon, since weather balloons were common in the Air Force. But if the debris really had strange properties, then he might keep it around for later viewing and study, only showing it to other military personnel, like Sheridan Cavitt, who had accompanied him to the site. And, too, he might keep it because he knew the public explanation for Roswell was a cover story, one that had used him as a scapegoat, so he wanted to retain evidence to prove his original evaluation was correct. INVESTIGATIVE WEAKNESSES By now it should be apparent that 1) the Air Force cannot prove that debris from a Mogul balloon train was the cause of the Roswell incident, and 2) the report is self-contradictory and logically inconsistent. The Air Force was quick in their report to criticize the work of UFO researchers because "almost all their information came from verbal reports many years after the alleged incident occurred. . . Most, however, related their stories in their older years, well after the fact." That description applies almost perfectly to the Air Force report, which relies nearly exclusively upon such evidence. Even though Project Mogul documentation exists, there is no paper or physical evidence to prove conclusively that a purplish-pink tape, for example, was used in constructing the balloon trains. Yes, former Mogul personnel claim it was so, but their statements are simply "verbal reports many years after the alleged incident occurred." The same is true for all the critical elements that might link Project Mogul to Roswell. Colonel Weaver, head of the Air Force investigation, admitted as much to Cavitt during the interview. He stated, in response to Cavitt's wishing him good luck at convincing people of the Mogul explanation, that " . . . it is going to be difficult, because like I say we have nothing other than this one formerly classified project that was occurring out there at the same time that was even a little bit 'funny', if you will." This is a telling admission of weakness because, if the source of the Roswell debris was something unusual but conventional, and there was only one project going on in New Mexico that might have caused it, why should it be difficult to convince us that this project - Mogul - was the cause? The answer, as Weaver must be aware, is that the Air Force case is weak. They, like the UFO investigators they criticize, rely on verbal reports and selective use of existing accounts. ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä [22] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 73 of 80 From : Jean Van Gemert 2:284/402 13 May 95 18:07:00 To : All Subj : USAF ROSWELL RAPPORT DEBUNKED 6/6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ What makes the Air Force report inferior to the best Roswell investigations is its refusal to use all the available testimony, especially their star witnesses. If, as the Air Force claims, time makes memories hazy, then you would expect them to use statements from Charles Moore from around 1980 rather than 1994, since Moore's memory 14 years ago is likely to be more accurate. This is particularly true because, in the meantime, he has read much UFO material by his own admission. However, the Air Force completely ignores the following key statement Charles Moore gave to Bill Moore in 1980: "Based on the description you just gave me, I can definitely rule this out [that Roswell could be a weather or other scientific balloon]. There wasn't' t a balloon in use back in '47, or even today for that matter, that could have produced debris over such a large area or torn up the ground in any way. I have no idea what such an object might have been, but I can't believe a balloon would fit such a description." That is a damning statement that completely refutes the Mogul explanation. Since the Air Force couldn't explain why a key witness has changed his testimony, they found it convenient to ignore previous interviews. We though, are not bound by such artificial restrictions, so have to question why Charles Moore has now changed his mind. In any case, we usually accept the first statements made by a witness, before any contamination has set in. On that basis, Project Mogul could not have been the cause of the Roswell debris. There is one other flagrant lacuna that confirms to us, at least, that the Air Force was not interested in conducting an in-depth investigation into Roswell: the lack of thoughtful and insightful questions by Weaver as he interviewed Cavitt. Earlier we noted the bizarre situation in which Cavitt was able to recognize balloon debris immediately, but Marcel and Blanchard could not. Since this is such a puzzle, you would expect a competent interviewer to ask Cavitt what he told Marcel and what Marcel said in return as they discussed the debris on the ranch. But this matter was never raised by Weaver, making it obvious that he was not interested in pursuing every potentially important lead. Nor did he delve, after Mary Cavitt's comments, into what the Cavitts knew about the debris that Marcel kept at his home. It should have been obvious that the nature of that debris was crucial to the investigation. We have demonstrated how little compelling evidence there is for the Air Force's theory that a Project Mogul balloon array caused the Roswell incident. Why, then did much of the media so blindly accept the Air Force's conclusion? A full answer to that question must await another article, but we can note here the double standard applied to the UFO subject by the press. Just imagine that the Air Force had released a report on some other topic, a report in which they 1) admitted that originally they had lied, and 2) the "real" explanation was still fairly similar to the lie. Can anyone believe that the American press, given their general distrust of the military, and the history of government cover-ups during the Cold War, would automatically believe the new explanation? Yet that is exactly what much of the press has done with Roswell. It truly does boggle the mind. The Air Force report has not halted the GAO investigation or reduced the resolve of Rep. Schiff, who told CUFOS that he is determined to continue his efforts at learning the truth about Roswell. We thank and applaud him for his resolve and political courage. In this article, we have criticized the Air Force report without resorting to much of the evidence collected by investigators over the past fifteen years. When that information is brought to bear, the superficial nature and inherent bias of the report are even more apparent. Although it is very helpful to have Sheridan Cavitt on the record, as well as the Air Force itself, the Air Force report is useful for little else, and it does not contribute toward solving the puzzle of the nature of the debris found near Roswell in 1947. That is truly a shame, given what could have been accomplished. -------------------- Mark Rodeghier, Ph.D., is scientific director of the Center for UFO Studies. Mark Chesney is a CUFOS research associate. -------------------- ... THEY ARE HERE!! * Origin: -=[ Quest For Data BBS +31-40-854657 ]=- (2:284/402) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 449 of 478 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 15 May 95 00:10:02 To : All 17 May 95 01:51:50 Subj : ALIEN AUTOPSY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Originally by George Wingfield, 1:233/13.99 * Originally to Don Allen, 1:2430/2112.3 * Originally dated 12 May 1995, 11:05 From: romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu!cix.compulink.co.uk!momus (George Wingfield) To: cix.compulink.co.uk!BIN The "Roswell" Film Footage (1995) --------------------------------- On May 5th 1995 Ray Santilli organised a showing, in a lecture room at the Museum of London, of part of the film footage which is supposed to have been taken at Roswell in July 1947. Among 80 or so people present were press, TV, and radio journalists besides other film makers and several ufologists. Attendees were prohibited from taking cameras into the hall. The showing was subsequently reported in radio bulletins but it was almost entirely ignored by the British press which has been largely sceptical of the UFO subject for years. Santilli and a German backer claim to have acquired the film footage about a year ago from an unnamed 80-year old, who worked as a cine cameraman for the US army in the 1940s and was flown to Roswell from Washington D.C. specifically to film the retrieval of a crashed flying saucer and its dead or injured occupants. The cameraman (whose name is rumored to be Jack Barnett) supposedly took copies of the cine film on 16 mm filmstock and kept about 14 cartridges of it. Apparently he was willing to sell it a year or two ago in order to raise money to pay for his grand-daughter's wedding. Santilli reportedly paid him $100,000. It has been suggested, but denied by Santilli, that this Jack Barnett lives in Cincinnati, Ohio. The film segment shown on May 5th lasted about 25 minutes and was a videotaped copy of a number of the original cartridges. It was in black and white with no soundtrack, but had a few lines of rolling text recently appended to the beginning explaining in the briefest manner its claimed origin. Initially one sees the naked body of the dead alien lying face up on an operating table or similar horizontal surface. This appears to be in an operating theatre where the only other visible fixtures are a clock and a telephone attached to the wall. A surgeon and his assistant stand beside the corpse clothed in what appear to be white anti-radiation or anti-contamination suits with attached hoods all in one piece. The hoods contain visors in the form of rectangular slits. This is quite unlike what two doctors wore in a different segment of the film (not shown on May 5th) where they worked in a tent or temporary shelter at the crash site. Reportedly these two did not wear masks or gloves while working on the bodies. In the May 5th segment, a further figure is seen through a large plain glass window in a wall at the end of the operating theatre. The corpse is about 5 ft tall, possibly just a shade less. The head is proportionately large but not unduly so: perhaps 25% larger than one would expect a human head to be. The eyes too are large, but are not that large, or all black as has been described as a distinctive feature of "greys". They are round, slightly oval, and have pupils. They do not appear slanted or almond-shaped. The neck appears normal and not unduly long or thin. Ears are minimal but seem to be positioned lower down on the head. The mouth is in the shape of a small inverted crescent giving the corpse, unsurprisingly, a rather sad look. The mouth seems open and so looks black inside, but it is hard to say whether the lips are thin or absent. The nose is small. The head and body are completely hairless, though they could possibly have been shaved; there is slight darkening in the pubic area. No external genitalia are visible and the corpse is flat-chested with little indication of nipples. Nevertheless it seems possible the creature is female. The whiteness of the skin is the same shade as Caucasian human skin would be when filmed in monochrome. The body is bulbous and the abdomen appears swollen. The arms and legs are not spindly as one might expect of an alien grey. The thighs in particular are quite thick, tapering towards the knees which are not much in evidence. The musculature of the limbs is certainly human-like and not what one might expect to find in an entirely alien species. However, the feet quite distinctly have six toes but with toenails which look like human ones. It is not possible to be sure whether the hands have a similar number of digits or not, due to the fact that these were alongside the body and could not be clearly seen. Although the camera pans in on various parts of the body as the autopsy proceeds, detail is often not visible due to poor focus though one cannot be sure whether this is deliberate. The only visible injury is a long gash on the inside of the right leg extending from mid-thigh to almost mid-shin. Where the wound was gouged out the flesh appears black though this may be dark red were it to be shown on colour film. Likewise all incisions opened up by the surgeon merely reveal a black- ness which renders it impossible to identify internal organs. The surgeon performs the autopsy, decisively cutting into the body with a scalpel along carefully chosen lines and opening up the body cavities. The initial cuts along the centreline of the body result in slight trickles of blood, or at any rate a dark fluid. The stomach and chest areas are opened up and the dark interior is not easily visible, nor the dark shapeless matter which is taken out. The surgeon removes various internal organs placing them in glass dishes held by his assistant. It is impossible to say which organs are removed. At some stage the surgeon uses tweezers to pull dark membranes from each eye which he places in a dish. This apparently leaves behind just the white eyeballs. All this is done swiftly as if it were standard procedure. The clock on the wall moves on from an initial time of 10.20 to nearly 11.00 and then later still. The filming is obviously not continuous and it seems that different short time segments have been pieced together with some stages of the autopsy being omitted. The camera moves about quickly, sometimes jerkily, and it is often difficult to discern what the surgeon is doing. The final stage of the autopsy is the cutting away of the top part of the skull to give access to the brain. The surgeon saws away for several minutes after first making scalpel cuts across the upper head to mark where he will saw. We do not see the skull opened but next we are shown the removal of dark matter from within the skull. This is placed in a dish or jar. Some of this matter appears black and jelly-like and, possibly, not as one might expect to find light-coloured human brain matter. (Then, I do not have any medical experience in this field and so this observation may well be misguided.) At this stage the film segment ends with the autopsy probably having taken about two hours. My account of the autopsy may contain some inaccuracies since the details are recollected from memory of just the one showing of the film on May 5th. Although the creature in the operating theatre is supposedly an alien, it is not really that dissimilar to a human. It is not clear that this is a completely different species. There is just a possibility that the body is that of a freak or deformed human. Equally it is conceivable that a human body was "doctored" to make it appear like an alien. These suspicions are only natural in view of the extraordinary emergence of the film at this time without any supporting evidence to back its authenticity. Descriptions of alien bodies at Roswell in 1947 certainly do not tally with what we are shown in this film sequence. Nevertheless it does appear that this is a real autopsy procedure carried out on a corpse of some kind. It does not seem to be an early sci-fi "B" movie, as has been suggested. So, if this footage is not what it purports to be, what is it really, and what was the intention in making it ? These are questions that must be answered and the key to such an answer must surely lie in finding "Jack Barnett", if such a person exists. Even if the autopsy is of an alien corpse there is nothing in the segment viewed on May 5th to link it with Roswell and July 1947. In fact there are three possible anachronisms in the film segment which suggest to me that the footage was made anything up to twenty years later. First, the telephone hand-set in the operating theatre has a black shiny coiled cable, seemingly plastic coated. These were not introduced in Britain until 1960; in the U.S. they may have been available earlier but surely not as early as 1947. Secondly, the anti-contamination suits look very much like those worn by atomic power workers in the 1950s and 1960s. These were surely not available as early as 1947, though some kind of radiation suits must have been used at Los Alamos. Thirdly, the large circular electric clock with bold numerals on it on the operating theatre wall does not look like a 1940s style clock. I may be wrong, but all of these things look very much more like the style of the 1960s than what one would expect to see just after World War II. An interesting detail according to one researcher is that Kodak's date code symbol on at least one of the original film cartridges is a square beside a triangle. Kodak's first reaction to an inquiry about this was that it signified a date of 1967. They then apparently conceded that the date coding ran in twenty year cycles and it could have been 1947. Santilli says that Kodak have confirmed the cartridges are of 1940s vintage but he has produced no written report to this effect. If this footage was made in the 1950s/1960s rather than 1947, does it still show an alien autopsy or has it just been staged to look like one ? One possiblity that might be considered is that this was a secret training film produced by the military for the military. There is no doubt that, following events in the late 1940s and 1950s (including, of course, the Roswell episode), many top military and government people believed most firmly --rightly or wrongly-- that flying saucers were of extra-terrestrial origin. If this was the case, what could be more natural than to make a training film to be shown to special military units instructing them what was to be done in the case of a flying saucer crash retrieval ? An alternative explanation is that this footage was produced as deliberate disinformation to discredit the Roswell story and research into UFO crash retrieval. Although the present intention of those who own the footage seems to be to make as much money as possible from it, it would be surprising if the film was made with this intention originally. Santilli calls --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 456 of 465 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 16 May 95 02:30:00 To : All 18 May 95 01:38:22 Subj : Alleged Roswell Film: Update 1/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 14 May 1995, 14:23 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 14 May 95 01:44:15 GMT Message-ID: <0099052D.10F7A5FE.3@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo I have received a lengthy document from Graham Birdsall, editor of UFO Magazine (UK), which Graham has asked if I would like to disseminate on the internet. The document effectively sets out the position of Quest International, publishers of UFO Magazine, concerning the alleged Roswell archive film and contains some important new information. Graham stated that this new information had not appeared elsewhere as yet and this is therefore a "world exclusive", courtesy of the internet. The document covers six pages and is unfortunately too lengthy for me to reproduce in full in the available time. However, this is the key information therein: SUBJECT: The alleged Roswell archive film PLUS - London Press Briefing Friday - 5 May 1995 From the Editor - Graham W. Birdsall - UFO Magazine Ever since Philip Mantle, Director of Investigations for the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA), announced through the Press Association on 26 March 1995, that an alleged 70 minute archive film of the Roswell UFO crash-site had been unearthed by the English television producer Ray Santilli, there has been much speculation as to its authenticity. That latter word, authenticity, is the key word to what has become a long-running fiasco in the eyes of many people in this country and overseas. This alleged piece of archive footage was known about and discussed by Philip Mantle 20 months ago, and yet, no analysis as to its authenticity has ever been conducted to my knowledge. Only when the Press Association ran its story, were international UFO researchers and bonifide UFO organisations contacted by Mantle. Stanton T. Friedman, the original investigator on the Roswell case was not made privy to the film's existence beforehand, nor indeed, were any of the other recognised scholars on the Roswell incident. That sobering fact alone, where no acknowledge expert on Roswell had been brought into the confidence of Mantle or Santilli, to at the very least offer their much-valued opinion, gave rise to much suspicion amongst researchers as to the authenticity of the film, and the motives behind those responsible for keeping it close to their chests. Shortly after the Press Association put out Mantle's comments, UFO Magazine strived to obtain as much information about the affair as was physically possible. We had several transatlantic telephone conversations with Stanton, and he made a number of checks on our behalf. * He confirmed that the 82 year-old gentleman alleged to have taken a copy of the Roswell crash-site scene was unknown to military archivists. * He confirmed that President Truman, purportedly filmed in Texas during the crash-recovery follow-up exercise, was never in that state during July, August, September and October of 1947 (this was done through checking President Truman's personal diary at the Truman Library). We have attempted to prise detailed information from Ray Santilli, but he has remained impassive throughout, and distances himself from Mantle's statements contained in the Press association release. It was claimed in the Press Association release that Kodak had examined the archive film and shown it to be genuine, in the sense that its age was at least 50 years. This is completely false. We spoke with Mr Peter Milson (Kodak) of the moving picture department, and he stated that he had never heard of the film. Milson checked with all other departments at Kodak within the United Kingdom, and also the United States. In a reply from Mr Milson, he stated: "Nobody from Kodak has heard or seen anything about this film". Let me quote from a statement I received from Stanton Friedman: "I did meet briefly with Santilli on Tuesday, April 4, just before I left (England). I did NOT see any film. He hustled me out of their tiny office to a coffee shop. I have trouble believing anything he says. He admits he is only in it for the money." He continued: "The INTERNET rumour mill claims falsely that I saw the footage and that I established that Truman was in Dallas at the time of the autopsy! I don't even have a date for the autopsy, but was able to establish according to the Truman Library that Truman was NOT in Texas in July, August, September, October of 1947." The clear absence of any technical analysis, despite having had an opportunity to conduct authenticity tests in an 18-month period, is totally unprofessional. The clear unwillingness to involve or seek expert opinion from Roswell researchers during the 18-month period prior to the Press Association release was unprofessional. The unwillingness to involve or seek expert opinion even after the Press Association release is also unprofessional. A great deal of money is being talked about in respect of this archive film, and already, its appearance has resulted in numerous enquiries for tickets to events staged by BUFORA (i.e. Sheffield Conference in August later in the year). [Note: Graham indicated in conversation that the conference is now a sell-out (an apt phrase) and that BUFORA intend to expand the available seating. I can't confirm this.] Interestingly, another gentleman in the United States, who spoke with Philip Mantle some time ago, claims that Philip told him the edges of the film had the letters KODA running along the length (between the spool cut-outs) followed by a square and circle symbol. Kodak in the United States have confirmed that these symbols are a code used by them, and in the case of the square and circle, are affixed in a twenty year cycle. Their records indicate the code was used in 1967, and before that, 1947. One other important revelation made by Kodak that could well prove the solution to resolving the issue, is that the symbols are complimented with a coded series of minute spots (early equivalent of a bar code), which would tell them the precise age of the film. Unfortunately, Santilli has still to approach Kodak to allow them to conduct what would be a brief and simple examination - a point not lost to Ufologists and those within the media who have strived to obtain answers. The Museum of London, played host to Santilli and Mantle on 5 May 1995... ...Incredibly, the camera then panned around the operating theatre, and focused on a group of people seen staring through some type of observation window. One of these gentlemen had a clipboard in his hand, and the camera zoomed-in to reveal the letters MJ-12 on the back of the clipboard. Anomalies as to the authenticity of this scene have been raised by many who were present, particularly expert television and film technicians. * A wall clock seen in the latter scene - manufactured much later than 1947. * The zoom lens facility used in the latter scene - was not available in 1947. Continued... --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 457 of 465 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 16 May 95 02:37:00 To : All 18 May 95 01:38:22 Subj : "Roswell" Film Update 01/ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "BAMA" * Originally by John Powell * Originally to All * Originally dated 15 May 1995, 22:13 * Originally By: James Easton * Originally To: All * Originally Re: "Roswell" Film Update 01/ * Original Area: MUFON Public Echo * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12 OS/2 Perhaps a more convincing argument used by sceptics, is that U.S. military film archivists and cameramen used 22mm film in 1947, and not 16mm. Santilli has refused to answer telephone messages, and has backtracked on earlier promises to show segments on television, even though offers of payment have been made. Earlier today (12 May, 1995), I managed to unearth further disturbing details about this affair through a television contact who has been in direct contact with Santilli. What I discovered, may yet prove to be decisive in determining if Ufology, the general public, and the media at large, are being led up the garden path. Santilli had corresponded with us very early in this affair, using letter-headed notepaper of the Merlin group, a London based company. Checks made by us determined that this company was in official receivership. As recently as 4 May 1995, Santilli was using the same Merlin group notepaper to correspond with Stanton T. Friedman. At the 5 May press gathering, a gentleman named Chris Carey appeared on the scene, and behaved rather "bullishly" according to one T.V. producer. Carey handed out leaflets which briefly outlined the Roswell incident, and told members of the media that he was acting as agent on behalf of Santilli. Any negotiations as to television rights had to be made through him. Atop the leaflets, was the name of a company Carey claimed he was associated with - International Exploitation Management - a name not heard before by any of the journalists present. However, unbeknown to the UFO researchers present, some television pundits knew that Chris Carey either worked for or was associated with another company which was known to them - Imaginations. Imaginations is a company which produces props and scenery, plus latex figures for sci-fi scenes, for the television and film industry. This revelation resulted in discreet conversations being held in private amongst the journalists and surprise, surprise, there was little or no press coverage given to the archive film during the course of the next few days. [Note: This explains a lot. Despite purchasing several Saturday and Sunday newspapers, I was astonished to find there was not a mention of the press conference in any of them. There was no U.K. national news coverage of the conference either.] We made checks to find out more about Imaginations and International Exploitation Management, and initially came up with very little, except for two things: Imaginations does exist on Company House records, and they have 15 Directors, 13 of whom became Directors in April, 1995! [Note: It should be possible to identify these directors and this is in hand.] International Exploitation Management did not exist at company house, so we invited Stanton T. Friedman to enquire if this was a U.S. based company. However, earlier today, I spoke with a major figure in the British television industry, who was "fed up at being mucked about by Santilli." I was told that figures within the television industry had been making their own checks, and that International Exploitation Management was based at the same address as the Merlin group - in fact, they had the same telephone numbers! I was told that Santilli was departing for Japan at the end of May to conduct negotiations with television companies over there for first-time rights to the archive. The numerous flaws thus far detected in this sorry affair should be enough to put everyone on their guard - more so now that we have begun to make steady progress in determining which companies are involved. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to them, some prominent English Ufologists have been seen to actively promote Santilli and the archive film, without any regard for the consequences of what it will mean for the rest of us, if this film proves to be an elaborate hoax. On the back of what has been claimed by Santilli, and indirectly supported by those same Ufologists, the general public and UFO enthusiasts alike have purchased tickets for events where segments of the archived film is scheduled to be shown. There is no doubt whatsoever in my own mind, that people who have purchased tickets based entirely on claims that this archive is the genuine article, are in for a great disappointment. Once we began to enquire, once we began to identify serious flaws, Santilli refused to discuss the matter further. Philip Mantle has had the opportunity as Director of Investigations for BUFORA, and English representative for MUFON, to make the same enquiries, to ask the same questions, but more importantly, had the opportunity to do so some 18 months before any of us. This in itself raises serious questions - a point not lost on numerous correspondents I have dealt with during the course of the last few weeks. The motives as to why this archive film has been generated and promoted (Continued to next message) --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 458 of 465 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 16 May 95 02:37:02 To : All 18 May 95 01:38:22 Subj : "Roswell" Film Update 02/ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "BAMA" * Originally by John Powell * Originally to All * Originally dated 15 May 1995, 22:13 * Originally By: James Easton * Originally To: All * Originally Re: "Roswell" Film Update 02/ * Original Area: MUFON Public Echo * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12 OS/2 (Continued from previous message) raises further serious questions and pertinent answers and explanations will be demanded by all of Ufology, particularly as it has been kept in the dark, so-to-speak, by people who have been considered to be able UFO researchers in their own right. This information should be circulated to as wide an audience as possible, with the express aim of informing the UFO community at large that the Roswell archive footage is highly suspect, and that previous claims as to it's authenticity are bogus. The facts presented are true and accurate accounts of our investigations. Signed, Graham W. Birdsall - Editor [END] Cheers, James. -!------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK -!------------------------------------------------------------- --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 463 of 465 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 16 May 95 02:51:06 To : All 18 May 95 01:38:24 Subj : Roswell Film By KD Randle #2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by KD Randle * Originally to All * Originally dated 14 May 1995, 14:22 From: kdrandle@aol.com (KD Randle) Date: 12 May 95 04:35:30 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Message-ID: <3ouoii$on8@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo We have now learned that curled phone cords were available as early as 1939 as a special order item. That means it is possible, though not likely, that the hospital phone cord could have been curled. There are many other problems with the film, not the least of which is the length of time between the crash and the alleged date of the autopsy. Before we can make an intelligent decision on the film, we must be able to review the whole thing. However, the circumstances still suggest that it is a hoax and we must remember without all the information, we must remain skeptical. Any other course opens us to the criticisms of the skeptics. Kevin D. Randle --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä [22] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 42 of 76 From : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464.12 15 May 95 19:55:00 To : All Subj : Alleged Roswell Film: Update 1/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * This msg is forwarded from ALT.PARANET.UFO * Originally From: James Easton in UseNet * To : All * Date: sunday 14 May 1995 02:44:15 Sender: "Gateway to alt.paranet.ufo" From: James I have received a lengthy document from Graham Birdsall, editor of UFO Magazine (UK), which Graham has asked if I would like to disseminate on the internet. The document effectively sets out the position of Quest International, publishers of UFO Magazine, concerning the alleged Roswell archive film and contains some important new information. Graham stated that this new information had not appeared elsewhere as yet and this is therefore a "world exclusive", courtesy of the internet. The document covers six pages and is unfortunately too lengthy for me to reproduce in full in the available time. However, this is the key information therein: SUBJECT: The alleged Roswell archive film PLUS - London Press Briefing Friday - 5 May 1995 From the Editor - Graham W. Birdsall - UFO Magazine Ever since Philip Mantle, Director of Investigations for the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA), announced through the Press Association on 26 March 1995, that an alleged 70 minute archive film of the Roswell UFO crash-site had been unearthed by the English television producer Ray Santilli, there has been much speculation as to its authenticity. That latter word, authenticity, is the key word to what has become a long-running fiasco in the eyes of many people in this country and overseas. This alleged piece of archive footage was known about and discussed by Philip Mantle 20 months ago, and yet, no analysis as to its authenticity has ever been conducted to my knowledge. Only when the Press Association ran its story, were international UFO researchers and bonifide UFO organisations contacted by Mantle. Stanton T. Friedman, the original investigator on the Roswell case was not made privy to the film's existence beforehand, nor indeed, were any of the other recognised scholars on the Roswell incident. That sobering fact alone, where no acknowledge expert on Roswell had been brought into the confidence of Mantle or Santilli, to at the very least offer their much-valued opinion, gave rise to much suspicion amongst researchers as to the authenticity of the film, and the motives behind those responsible for keeping it close to their chests. Shortly after the Press Association put out Mantle's comments, UFO Magazine strived to obtain as much information about the affair as was physically possible. We had several transatlantic telephone conversations with Stanton, and he made a number of checks on our behalf. * He confirmed that the 82 year-old gentleman alleged to have taken a copy of the Roswell crash-site scene was unknown to military archivists. * He confirmed that President Truman, purportedly filmed in Texas during the crash-recovery follow-up exercise, was never in that state during July, August, September and October of 1947 (this was done through checking President Truman's personal diary at the Truman Library). We have attempted to prise detailed information from Ray Santilli, but he has remained impassive throughout, and distances himself from Mantle's statements contained in the Press association release. It was claimed in the Press Association release that Kodak had examined the archive film and shown it to be genuine, in the sense that its age was at least 50 years. This is completely false. We spoke with Mr Peter Milson (Kodak) of the moving picture department, and he stated that he had never heard of the film. Milson checked with all other departments at Kodak within the United Kingdom, and also the United States. In a reply from Mr Milson, he stated: "Nobody from Kodak has heard or seen anything about this film". Let me quote from a statement I received from Stanton Friedman: "I did meet briefly with Santilli on Tuesday, April 4, just before I left (England). I did NOT see any film. He hustled me out of their tiny office to a coffee shop. I have trouble believing anything he says. He admits he is only in it for the money." He continued: "The INTERNET rumour mill claims falsely that I saw the footage and that I established that Truman was in Dallas at the time of the autopsy! I don't even have a date for the autopsy, but was able to establish according to the Truman Library that Truman was NOT in Texas in July, August, September, October of 1947." The clear absence of any technical analysis, despite having had an opportunity to conduct authenticity tests in an 18-month period, is totally unprofessional. The clear unwillingness to involve or seek expert opinion from Roswell researchers during the 18-month period prior to the Press Association release was unprofessional. The unwillingness to involve or seek expert opinion even after the Press Association release is also unprofessional. A great deal of money is being talked about in respect of this archive film, and already, its appearance has resulted in numerous enquiries for tickets to events staged by BUFORA (i.e. Sheffield Conference in August later in the year). [Note: Graham indicated in conversation that the conference is now a sell-out (an apt phrase) and that BUFORA intend to expand the available seating. I can't confirm this.] Interestingly, another gentleman in the United States, who spoke with Philip Mantle some time ago, claims that Philip told him the edges of the film had the letters KODA running along the length (between the spool cut-outs) followed by a square and circle symbol. Kodak in the United States have confirmed that these symbols are a code used by them, and in the case of the square and circle, are affixed in a twenty year cycle. Their records indicate the code was used in 1967, and before that, 1947. One other important revelation made by Kodak that could well prove the solution to resolving the issue, is that the symbols are complimented with a coded series of minute spots (early equivalent of a bar code), which would tell them the precise age of the film. Unfortunately, Santilli has still to approach Kodak to allow them to conduct what would be a brief and simple examination - a point not lost to Ufologists and those within the media who have strived to obtain answers. The Museum of London, played host to Santilli and Mantle on 5 May 1995... ...Incredibly, the camera then panned around the operating theatre, and focused on a group of people seen staring through some type of observation window. One of these gentlemen had a clipboard in his hand, and the camera zoomed-in to reveal the letters MJ-12 on the back of the clipboard. Anomalies as to the authenticity of this scene have been raised by many who were present, particularly expert television and film technicians. * A wall clock seen in the latter scene - manufactured much later than 1947. * The zoom lens facility used in the latter scene - was not available in 1947. Continued... --- April V1.0+ * Origin: < Ni ! > (2:280/464.12) Ä [22] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 43 of 76 From : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464.12 15 May 95 19:56:00 To : All Subj : Alleged Roswell Film: Update 2/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * This msg is forwarded from ALT.PARANET.UFO * Originally From: James Easton in UseNet * To : All * Date: sunday 14 May 1995 02:47:06 From: James Easton Perhaps a more convincing argument used by sceptics, is that U.S. military film archivists and cameramen used 22mm film in 1947, and not 16mm. Santilli has refused to answer telephone messages, and has backtracked on earlier promises to show segments on television, even though offers of payment have been made. Earlier today (12 May, 1995), I managed to unearth further disturbing details about this affair through a television contact who has been in direct contact with Santilli. What I discovered, may yet prove to be decisive in determining if Ufology, the general public, and the media at large, are being led up the garden path. Santilli had corresponded with us very early in this affair, using letter-headed notepaper of the Merlin group, a London based company. Checks made by us determined that this company was in official receivership. As recently as 4 May 1995, Santilli was using the same Merlin group notepaper to correspond with Stanton T. Friedman. At the 5 May press gathering, a gentleman named Chris Carey appeared on the scene, and behaved rather "bullishly" according to one T.V. producer. Carey handed out leaflets which briefly outlined the Roswell incident, and told members of the media that he was acting as agent on behalf of Santilli. Any negotiations as to television rights had to be made through him. Atop the leaflets, was the name of a company Carey claimed he was associated with - International Exploitation Management - a name not heard before by any of the journalists present. However, unbeknown to the UFO researchers present, some television pundits knew that Chris Carey either worked for or was associated with another company which was known to them - Imaginations. Imaginations is a company which produces props and scenery, plus latex figures for sci-fi scenes, for the television and film industry. This revelation resulted in discreet conversations being held in private amongst the journalists and surprise, surprise, there was little or no press coverage given to the archive film during the course of the next few days. [Note: This explains a lot. Despite purchasing several Saturday and Sunday newspapers, I was astonished to find there was not a mention of the press conference in any of them. There was no U.K. national news coverage of the conference either.] We made checks to find out more about Imaginations and International Exploitation Management, and initially came up with very little, except for two things: Imaginations does exist on Company House records, and they have 15 Directors, 13 of whom became Directors in April, 1995! [Note: It should be possible to identify these directors and this is in hand.] International Exploitation Management did not exist at company house, so we invited Stanton T. Friedman to enquire if this was a U.S. based company. However, earlier today, I spoke with a major figure in the British television industry, who was "fed up at being mucked about by Santilli." I was told that figures within the television industry had been making their own checks, and that International Exploitation Management was based at the same address as the Merlin group - in fact, they had the same telephone numbers! I was told that Santilli was departing for Japan at the end of May to conduct negotiations with television companies over there for first-time rights to the archive. The numerous flaws thus far detected in this sorry affair should be enough to put everyone on their guard - more so now that we have begun to make steady progress in determining which companies are involved. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to them, some prominent English Ufologists have been seen to actively promote Santilli and the archive film, without any regard for the consequences of what it will mean for the rest of us, if this film proves to be an elaborate hoax. On the back of what has been claimed by Santilli, and indirectly supported by those same Ufologists, the general public and UFO enthusiasts alike have purchased tickets for events where segments of the archived film is scheduled to be shown. There is no doubt whatsoever in my own mind, that people who have purchased tickets based entirely on claims that this archive is the genuine article, are in for a great disappointment. Once we began to enquire, once we began to identify serious flaws, Santilli refused to discuss the matter further. Philip Mantle has had the opportunity as Director of Investigations for BUFORA, and English representative for MUFON, to make the same enquiries, to ask the same questions, but more importantly, had the opportunity to do so some 18 months before any of us. This in itself raises serious questions - a point not lost on numerous correspondents I have dealt with during the course of the last few weeks. The motives as to why this archive film has been generated and promoted raises further serious questions and pertinent answers and explanations will be demanded by all of Ufology, particularly as it has been kept in the dark, so-to-speak, by people who have been considered to be able UFO researchers in their own right. This information should be circulated to as wide an audience as possible, with the express aim of informing the UFO community at large that the Roswell archive footage is highly suspect, and that previous claims as to it's authenticity are bogus. The facts presented are true and accurate accounts of our investigations. Signed, Graham W. Birdsall - Editor [END] Cheers, James. --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- --- April V1.0+ * Origin: Press any key to continue or any other key to quit. (2:280/464.12) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 559 of 604 From : Joachim Koch 2:2410/704.20 27 May 95 18:56:00 To : All 03 Jun 95 01:48:42 Subj : URGENT! NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ .SPLIT: 1 Jun 95 21:16:25 @2410/704 1972 01/02 +++++++++++ ********************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* *(IRI)* ********************************************************************** We received the following report from our Italian colleagues and would like to pass it on to those who have not read it so far. An official statement of the IRI with regards to the Santilli footage is coming up very soon. We are just following some hints which could reveal the true nature of the whole - as a major scam. But as long as not all details are confirmed we reserve judgement. We'll keep you informed. Please watch out for our subject:"URGENT! NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL". Thanx. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROSWELL AUTOPSY SHOWING IN ITALY by Edoardo Russo Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici This is a report on the showing of the so-called Roswell autopsy at the Third International Symposium on UFOs and Related Phenomena, held by Centro Ufologico Nazionale (CUN) in San Marino (Italy) on May 20th and 21st, 1995, where Philip Mantle was invited to speak about the now famed alien autopsy film. This report is being posted in the UFO newsgroups and mailing lists via Internet, in order to update colleagues all around the world on what Italian ufologists were able to learn first-hand. Sources for the report are the following: 1) Direct viewing by CISU members Paolo Fiorino, Matteo Leone, Edoardo Russo and Maurizio Verga of seven slides taken from the same footage shown in the London Museum on May 5th, 1995, with comments by Philip Mantle (BUFORA Director of Investigations) and Chris Cary (associate of footage owner, Ray Santilli); 2) Interviews and discussions by Matteo Leone, Edoardo Russo and Maurizio Verga with Chris Cary, Philip Mantle and some members of CUN who were able to see one of more parts of the video footage, being shown in London and elsewhere; 3) Papers presented by Maurizio Baiata and Philip Mantle at the Symposium. In several different moments across three days, we could ask the same details to different people involved, in order to cross-check information, were able to discuss among us about the collected answers and to ask more details as needed. We tried to clear some of the rumours spread in the UFO press and through the Internet. Here follows a resume of what we learned. 1) DESCRIPTION OF PARTS OF THE FOOTAGE BEING SHOWN Both Philip Mantle and Maurizio Baiata were shown three different footages. Mantle simply confirmed this to us, while we got most details from Baiata, an independent TV producer who has been working with CUN in the last three years and produced ten commercial UFO videotapes in Italy. Baiata has been following the story since the first mention of the film in a news agency release on March 27th, 1995. He tried and reached Santilli a few days later in Cannes (France) where he was shown the first part of the footage, which we will call: 1.1 - "the Tent footage": 7 minutes of black and white film showing an alleged alien body lying on a table within a tent badly lit by a lamp; the body is partly covered by a sheet, the head is badly visible in the dark, arms and feet are protruding from the cover, two white-dressed but un-masked men are examining the arms and seem to take a large piece of either skin or texture from an arm or the side of the body; the camera is fixed and sometime the back of the assumed operator is seen passing in front of the scene. This is the same footage Philip Mantle was given a videotaped copy of by Santilli, and shown by either Mantle or Santilli to several different people in the last months. This is the only part of the footage Mantle has got as yet in his possession and he is not allowed to show it publicly. 1.2 - The "Second" Autopsy On April 25th, Baiata flew from Rome to London in order to be shown a longer footage by Santilli. (Baiata offered to buy the rights for Italy, and arranged for the Italian national TV to take an interest in it.) When he got there, he was told the laboratory had not yet finished its work, and asked to wait till the following day. He did so and on April 26th he was in Santilli's office where Chris Cary showed him a 12 minutes footage (sum of 4 reels of 3 minutes each) showing an autopsy of a naked alien within an operatory room. The body is very similar to the one in the "first autopsy footage" (see later on), except that it seemingly is more decomposed. Doctors performing this autopsy do not wear protective coveralls as in the earlier one, but do wear surgeon masks. Philip Mantle confirmed to us that he too was shown this footage. 1.3 - The "First" Autopsy This is the 18 minutes footage more widely known, since it was shown in the London Museum on May 5th, before more than 100 invited journalists and UFO students. Italians attending were Maurizio Baiata, CUN director and UFO book author Roberto Pinotti, Italian TV Channel 2 (Raidue) director Gianni Minoli, and contactee/visionnaire/stigmatized Giorgio Bongiovanni with five of his followers (he, who usually see the Virgin Mary and talks about ETs as angels of the Lord, was later heard saying the alien was just the same as those seen by him!). Detailed descriptions of this footage have been posted everywhere, so I won't repeat them here: both Baiata and Pinotti confirmed us all such details. But here we can add our first-hand testimony: from this footage came the seven slides shown during the Symposium, which we were able to see. Circumstances of the viewing are meaningful: a) - the slides were not (and are not) in the possession of Philip Mantle; b) - they were taken in San Marino by Ray Santilli's associate Chris Cary on Saturday 20th and returned London with him on Sunday 21st; c) - they could not be shown publicly for fear somebody could photograph or videotape them, so two private viewing were arranged. The first show was on Saturday at lunch time (when the public had left), in the Grand Hotel: only official speakers at the Symposium, CUN directors, the press and local authorities were admitted; the Hotel was cordoned by policemen who checked every single person to verify nobody carried cameras or the like (this 007 scene was filmed by Italian TV and shown in the news on the following day). The second viewing took place in an underground room at the Symposium, at 7.30 p.m. on the same day, allowing only the press and attending CUN members to enter (and be checked one by one by the policemen against unwanted cameras). Attending CISU members were also invited to this second viewing by Pinotti and Baiata, probably afraid that we might do some negative PR action. You should know that CUN and CISU are rival organizations and do not keep good relations since 1985, when CISU was formed by former CUN members, CUN representing the 'fundamentalist', ET-believer approach, while CISU maintains a more skeptical-minded attitude. We were asked to keep a respectful approach (do not laugh, nor ridicule the film or the Symposium organizers, either on place or in later comments), which we agreed to. Among other viewers (we counted 90 to 100 in all) there were Swiss ufologist Bruno Mancusi and Spanish UFO journalist Javier Sierra, whom we later exchanged opinions with. Here follows a description of: 1.4 - The Seven Slides 1. A humanoid naked body lying on a table in a room; we were told female genitals were visible, but none of us was able to confirm this; the hairless head has two human-like ears in a lower position than us humans, two large Communion-style black eyes wide open, a very small nose, an open mouth. The belly is expanded and pregnant-like. The famed phone with a curled rope is plainly visible on a wall, as well as some surgical instruments in an open box. The right leg is badly wounded (scarnified), and lacks part of it, looking as if void inside. 2. A close-up of the head. 3. The black eye-cover being removed, showing white eye-balls (a small incision between chest and neck is already visible at this stage). 4. The body is being opened up with a L-shaped cutting from above chest to abdomen. 5. The opened body is exposed, with dark inside organs visible but not clearly distinguishable; no chest bones are found. 6. The whole body shown: six fingers are clearly visible on each hand. 7. The head skin is being removed, partly showing the brain. A doctor's gloved hands and part of his white dress are visible. Additional notes: a) - the black eye-cover is still on its place in slides 4 through 7: was it re-positioned after the removal shown in slide 3? Or is the correct order unrespected? (But then how to explain that in all slides after the fourth the chest is wide open, while it's intact in slide 3?); b) - though we were told organic liquids are visible as abundantly flowing in the video, nothing at all is visible in the slides; moreover, neither doctors' gloves nor the table are dirty but white clean in all seven slides; c) - according to Paolo Fiorino, who is a professional nurse with direct autopsy experience, the table wouldn't seem apt (lacking any draining and visible instruments are too few to be sufficient; moreover, contrary to verbal descriptions, he noticeed no sign of rigor mortis in the body. These notes are based upon viewing only slides, thus they may be overcome by a viewing of the complete video. 2. - RUMOURS, CONFIRMATIONS AND REBUTTALS We were able to ask a lot of questions and tried to verify several rumours heard or read of (mostly on Internet exchanges). Here's a summary. 2.1 - Phone cable: Mantle told that curled cables in use for telephones as early as the '40s were found in a book. 2.2 - Truman visiting the body: Mantle and Baiata were adamant they never saw nor heard of Truman being visible in any part of the film. 2.3 - Detlev Bronk and MJ-12: Mantle told that two names are plainly visible on a note-book held by someone during the autopsy: Detlev Bronk (the well known physiologist allegedly member of MJ-12) and a Dr. Williams. On the contrary, Baiata was adamant that no name could be visible on any note-book, because of its position; the same as for the rumoured 'MJ-12' writing. But Baiata also told us that he saw a sort of introductory headline on the 12 minutes 'second autopsy' footage he was privately shown on April 26th: 'Autopsy performed by Dr. Detlev Bronk'. 2.4 - Kodak analysis: Mantle denied that any analysis have been performed by Kodak. The company did only confirm that symbols and serial numbers visible on the film were real and recycled every 20 years, in particular in 1947, 1967 or 1987. 2.5 - Brazilian documentary: Mantle denied the story that an 'Unsolved Mysteries' reporter would have recognized the autopsy footage as part of a Brazilian UFO documentary. 2.6 - Vallee's role: Mantle reported (we never heard it before) and denied that the footage was first offered to UFO researcher Jacques Vallee. 2.7 - Nagaitis' role: Cary denied the rumour that Carl Nagaitis (press agent of Philip Mantle and co-author of his 1994 book on UFO abductions, 'Without Consent') was also the press agent of Ray Santilli, though he admitted they knew each other. 2.8 - Cary's role: I asked Chris Cary (variously described as Santilli's lawyer, accountant or partner) what his usual work activity was and what his role is in this affair: he replied he usually is in the film/TV documentary business, that he was acquainted with Santilli, and that Santilli called him to help cope with the growing media interest: he is now responsible for the marketing of the footage. 3. NEW INFORMATION The following information emerged, that was as yet unkown to us: 3.1 - Exact chronology: Santilly got the footage from Jack Barnett (real name, officially confirmed by Mantle in his speech) in June 1993, but according to Cary Santilli had known about it for at least a year (if true, this contradicts in part the known version). Mantle learned of the footage in 1993, phoned Santilli and asked to view it but got a refuse so he dismissed it as a tall tale and forgot it; the first one to view it would have been pop singer Reg Presley, in late 1993 or January 1994, and wen he told the story in TV Mantle went back to Santilli and finally was able to view it and got Santilli's promise to show it in Sheffield. Mantle confirmed that the world media explosion was casual: he told of the footage to a local journalist friend while promoting the Sheffield congress Mantle is organizing for BUFORA, but the news went on the national wires and soon he began receiving phone calls from over the world. 3.2 - Revising the Roswell time-line: Baiata told us he was told by Santilli that the footage consisted in several different recordings taken between June 5th and July 5th, 1947, in Roswell and Fort Worth: this would put back the Roswell crash about one month earlier than the original story. By the way, Mantle told that cameraman Barnett was allegedly ordered to Roswell from Washington officials. 3.3 - 91 minutes, not all good: Baiata was also told that some other short footages from the film have been viewed, but he was not shown them. Cary told that not all 91 minutes are as good as the three already shown parts. 3.4 - BUFORA attitude: Mantle confirmed to me that the other BUFORA directors are skeptical, and that no one of them has yet been able to view the footage, not even at the London Museum showing (as well as none of the American Roswell researchers, who claimed to be skeptical). He himself was very cautious in his public comments, and also told that he officially asked Santilli for a complete copy, offering BUFORA facilities for analysing it at best. 3.5 - Spielberg's movie and the Roswell footage: Mantle told us that the famed early 1994 UK tabloid story of Spielberg planning a new movie on Roswell and MJ-12 based on real footage was actually originated by Carl Nagaitis, who had learnt of the Santilli's film --- GIGO+ sn 310 at wad vsn 0.99.950303 --- CrossPoint v3.02 R * Origin: I'll see you on the dark side of the moon (2:2410/704.20) Ä [30] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 136 of 157 From : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464.12 01 Jun 95 21:30:00 To : All Subj : ROSWELL: Schiff vs Air Force report du ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * This msg is forwarded from ALT.ALIEN.VISITORS * Originally From: Sproing in UseNet * To : All * Date: wednesday 31 May 1995 22:38:10 From: jfrson@netjax.com (Sproing) The following article appeared 5/31/95 in the major newspaper of my market. Anderson's weekly column goes to a huge number of newspapers weekly. However: 1) A search of Schiff's database on WWW's THOMAS doesn't indicate any involvement with the GAO request. 2) GAO's "Government Documents" page is "still under construction." Watch next month for the agency report, if any. HEADLINE: What occurred at Roswell, N.M. still raises questions by Jack Anderson United Features Syndicate Investigators at the General Accounting Office are quietly skeptical about whether the U.S. Air Force told the truth when responding to a controversial request for information by a member of Congress in 1993. So far, however, investigators are not planning to voice their concerns in public ‹ or in a report to be released next month. At issue are events that took place nearly half a century ago in Roswell, N.M. ‹ the so-called ³Roswell incident² ‹ and whether the Air Force has told the truth about what it knows. Over the years, the Roswell Incident has become a cornerstone of UFO myth, chronicled frequently on television and in at least four books. It all began in July 1947, when a rancher northwest of Roswell found debris from a crashed object he thought was a flying saucer. Aluminum foil-like bits and pieces were reported to be impervious to burning or ripping, and returned to their original shape after crumpling. When the Army Air Force investigated, the first official press release issued by local officers declared that the military had found the remnants of a flying saucer. Within hours, however, higher-ups declared the press release a mistake and explained that the debris was merely a downed weather balloon. The story died for decades until the late 1970s, when television picked up on the story. Consistent denials by the Air Force ‹ and the disappearance of related documents ‹ only added fuel for the conspiracy theorists. The issue finally made it to Capitol Hill when a UFO skeptic, Rep. Steven H. Schiff, R-N.M., decided to get to the bottom of things. In March 1993 he asked the Air Force to declassify and provide him with all material relating to the incident. But rather than search through their own records, Air Force officials referred Schiff to the National Archives ‹ a move that Schiff took as an insult. The Archives promptly told Schiff it had no information. ³Typically, the Pentagon is eager to comply with congressional requests for information,² a Schiff spokesman told us. ³³Yet they just shunted us off to the Archives.² Seven months later, Schiff called in the GAO (the investigative arm of Congress) to look for documents and to find out if the Air Force lied to him. Once the GAO launched its inquiry, the Air Force suddenly found documents ‹ not in the National Archives, but in their own files. They issued a short report last September claiming the debris was part of Project Mogul, and experiment aimed at detecting future Soviet nuclear blasts by monitoring sound waves in the atmosphere using airborne balloons and sensors. At the time of the Roswell Incident, however, the Soviets were still two years away from building their first nuclear bomb. Though the GAO is not satisfied with the Air Force¹s explanation, it has confirmed the existence of Project Mogul. GAO officials add emphatically that no one involved in the audit believes the Air Force is covering up a UFO incident. ³But we do believe that something did happen at Roswell,² said one source close to the investigation. ³Something big. We don¹t know if it was a plane that crashed with a nuclear device on it ... or if it was some other experimental situation. But everything we¹ve seen so far points to an attempt on the part of the Air Force to lead anybody that looks at this down another track.² The Air Force predicts it will get a clean bill of health from the GAO. A GAO spokesman angrily predicted we¹d be e²embarrassed² if we suggested their soon-to-be-issued report was slated to be accusatory. While our sources say the Air Force has been less than forthcoming, the GAO may not make the case in its upcoming report ‹ especially since it might imply that the GAO believes a UFO landed at Roswell. ³We will tend to err on the side of not fueling UFO theories,² one GAO official explained. *** END *** --- April V1.03+ * Origin: The point of no return. (2:280/464.12) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 564 of 578 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 31 May 95 20:27:02 To : All 04 Jun 95 01:44:20 Subj : Roswell film footage. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by Bjoern Olsen * Originally to All * Originally dated 27 May 1995, 15:07 From: bjorno@oslonett.no (Bjoern Olsen) Date: 26 May 95 15:50:06 GMT Organization: Oslonett public access Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo This document is in response to the position of Quest International publishers of UFO Magazine in England, concerning the alleged Roswell archive film. It is from Philip Mantle, Director of Investigations for the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA). This information is in response to previous E-MAIL detailing information' by the editor of UFO Magazine Graham Birdsall. I have been requested to respond to Birdsall by colleagues from around the world and I have reluctantly agreed to do so. Subject: Roswell film footage. From: Philip Mantle. BUFORA Director of Investigations. 25 May 1995. To begin with I did not announce through the Press Association anything concerning the film in question as stated by Birdsall. The fact is that I was contacted by a friend and collegue by the name of David Clarke, a journalist on the Sheffield Star newspaper in Sheffield. David was writing an UFO article and requested a few quotes on the conference which would be a prelude to a larger item on the conference nearer the time of the conference taking place. David contacted me just a few days after I had confirmed Ray Santilli, owner of the Roswell film footage, as a speaker at the already planned conference on August 19 & 20. David's item was run a few days later in the Sheffield Star. The following Sunday I was contacted by Whites Press Agency in Sheffield who asked me if the details in the Sheffield Star were correct. I replied that they were. Theis press agency asked me a few more questions about the Roswell film and then thanked me for my time. That same evening I began receiving calls from around the world and then realised that it was this press agency who were initially responsible for sending the story all over the place. At no time did I release anything via Press Association as incorrectly stated by Birdsall. Birdsall is correct when he states that I have known of the possible existence of the film for quite some time. However, as usual he is incorrect in his statement that I did not contact international UFO researchers until the Press Association ran the story. For example I informed my colleagues at BUFORA of the story told to me by Ray Santilli which included Jenny Randles, John Spencer, Mike Wootten, Steve Gamble and others. This was told to them in 1993. I also took the opportunity to inform Walter H. Andrus, International Director of the Mutual UFO Network (the worlds largest UFO group) at BUFORA's 1993 conference in Bristol. Added to this I also informed trusted colleagues in other parts of the world. For example UFO- NORWAY's Odd-Gunnar Roed. As for the Roswell researchers I contacted many of them including Kevin Randle. Kevin's reaction was similar to most if not all US researchers. In his letter to me dated March 4. 1994 (please note the date which is long before the story hit the press) I quote: "I'm sorry but I don't believe the story that someone in England has footage taken on the Roswell crash site. No, that doesn't mean that I don't Ray Santilli. He's prbably telling the truth about the approach made to him." At a conference in Vienna in November of 1994 I also informed US researcher Don Ecker and editor of the US UFO publication UFO Vicki Cooper. This quite clearly demonstrates yet again that Birdsall's statements are incorrect. I can not comment on the whether or not the original cameraman's military background can be checked as I have not spoken to him nor can I comment on the movements of Presdent Truman. Cont...2 It is true to say that the press made various errors in their reporting of the incident. I can confirm that KODAK have not analysed the film but instead have agreed to do so. I can not comment of the statement by Stanton Friedman as he is entitled to his own opinions. However regarding analysis of the film BUFORA have put a two page proposal to Ray Santilli regarding this matter and we are hopeful that he will allow such analysis to take place at the earliest opportunity. With regards to money in connection with this film I can not confirm the amounts being rumored nor am I that interested. I am only interested in getting to the bottom of the matter and having the film analysed. Birdsall is partially correct as BUFORA's conference is almost out of tickets and one wonders if there is not a hint of envy here as Birdsall's conference follows shortly after BUFORA's. Withe reference to the code on the original film once again Birdsall as got it wrong, the code is KODA with a black solid square and a black solid triangle (not a circle as Birdsall states). Kent Jeffrey in the USA checked this for me and conformed that it is a code for 1947 film stock, however, some such codes are recycled every 20 years therefore it remains inconclusive. It is correct that Kodak can establish the age of the film stock quite quickly and again I hope to be able to do this in the not too distant future. Reguarding the Press Screening of one of the autopsy scenes in London on May 5., 1995. Birdsall was not there and therefore in no real position to comment on what the film depicted. I was and I can inform you that the camera, to the best of my recollection did not zoom in on a clipboard to reveal the letters MJ-12. Despite what Birdsall states states, a number of those in attendance were impressed by the film including a BBC TV cameraman, UFO researchers from the UK and Europe. Others like myself remained unconvinced one way or the other, whilst others were of the opinion that it was a hoax, I stress the word opinion. Anomalies raised such as the wall clock should be left for qualified historians to comment on and not editors of a small circulation UFO magazine. Similarly camera techniques and film from the era should be left in the hands of the appropriate authorities. Birdsall is wrong again in stating that Ray Santilli's company has gone into receivership. A copy of his accounts reveal quite the opposite. As for Chris Carey I know little about him and I can not therefore comment. As for press coverage after the showing in London it did not surprise me that nothing appeared as every newspaper was concentrating on the VE Day anniversary. Again I can not comment on what the TV industry may or may not say about Ray Santilli or with which TV companies he may or may not be negotiating with. That is his business. I know of no prominent English ufologists who have been promoting this film as genuine. The BUFORA conference will give people opportunity to see the film for themselves and perhaps allow them to make up their own mind. When this happens BUFORA will have achieved part of its aim in getting this film out into the public domain so that it can be studied and scrutinised by all. If BUFORA had not done this we would not be discussing these issues now. In none of BUFORA's conference material do we promote the film as genuine, instead we have pointed out that we can not confirm the film to be either genuine or fake which is a FACT and not a rumor. I would like to point out here that unlike Birdsall's conference no one is forbidden to attend, himself included. Cont....3 Birdsall is in no position to know what questions I have asked Ray Santilli and what proposals I have put to him in the 18 months or so since Santilli first told me about the film and what answers I have received in reply. If Birdsall wanted to know what lines of inquiry I was attempting to follow he could simply ask me. He has never done so. One must wonder why? Birdsall concluded that his information is a true and accurate account of their investigations. I have pointed out quite a number of gross errors in Birdsall's truth which I will remind you of: 1. I never released anything to the press Association. 2. UFO researchers from around the world were informed of this film. 3. Birdsall quotes the wrong code on the film. 4. No zoom lens seen during the autopsy sequence on May 5. 5. Ray Santilli's company is not in receivership. 6. BUFORA has not at any time promoted the film as genuine. So you can see that ufologi as Birdsall states, has not been kept in the dark and I am willing to coorporate with anyone over this matter so long as they can get their facts right which Birdsall clearly is either unable or does not want to do so. It would seem to me that Birdsall is green with envy over this whole matter which is a shame but he is not the only one. One must also ask how Birdsall can label anything as a hoax without first seeing the film if nothing else? I have put together a brief 5 page statement which highlights my involvement in this affair, copies of which have been sent to numerous Roswell researchers. I would challenge Birdsall to allow me to publish this in his magazine. Anyone wishing a copy of this can obtain one by sending a large SAE to: BUFORA, 1 Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire, England WF17 7SW Alternatively it should appear on the Internet and various UFO publications around the world. Philip Mantle 25.5.95. P.S. The 5 page statement is also available in Norwegian, please contact UFO-NORWAY Rygg N-4448 GYLAND NORWAY --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä [30] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 125 of 168 From : Gert Steenssens 2:292/505.18 04 Jun 95 12:01:00 To : All Subj : Comment on USAF Roswell report (1/3) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The Air Force Report on Roswell An Absence of Evidence by Mark Rodeghier & Mark Chesney ( From: John.Powell@f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell) Date: 31 Mar 95 00:41:53 GMT ) (IUR, September/October 1994, Volume 19, Number 5. International UFO Reporter, Copyright 1994 by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, 2457 West Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659, published bimonthly with a subscription rate of $25/yr.) As almost every reader of IUR must know by now, on September 8 of this year, the Air Force released a twenty-three page report, entitled Report of Air Force Research Regarding the "Roswell Incident." This report is dated July 1994, contains thirty-three attachments numbering hundreds of additional pages, and purports to "stand as the final official Air Force response regarding this matter." The release of this report and its conclusion - that the Roswell debris came from a top-secret balloon project - was widely reported in the media, including by major television networks and the New York Times, which ran a cover story on the report in its Sunday edition. Despite all this attention, the details of the Air Force report and conclusion have not always been made clear. In this article, we will explain the Air Force conclusion and the reasons they provide to support their theory about Roswell. We will also explain why the Roswell research community finds the Air Force hypothesis so weak and internally inconsistent by focusing on the testimony Air Force investigators gathered from a few carefully-chosen witnesses. The impetus for the Air Force report was the initiation of a General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation early this year, at the request of Rep. Stephen Schiff from New Mexico, as reported in the March/April issue of IUR. It is unusual for a government agency that is currently being investigated by the GAO to release a report to the public, as well as to the GAO, long before a GAO inquiry is complete. However, that is only one of the many oddities surrounding this report, as we demonstrate. Whatever its content, the Air Force report marks a milestone in ufology: Not since Project Blue Book was closed in 1969 has any agency of the government commented at such length on any UFO incident. That the Air Force was forced to do so says much about the depth of investigation and evidence that affirms the unusual nature of the debris recovered near Roswell in July 1947. It is impossible to print the report in its entirety in these pages, but we begin by reproducing the Executive Summary to provide a clear statement of the Air Force position. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The "Roswell Incident" refers to an event that supposedly happened in July, 1947, wherein the Army Air Forces (AAF) allegedly recovered remains of a crashed "flying disc" near Roswell, New Mexico. In February, 1994, the General Accounting Office (GAO), acting on the request of a New Mexico Congressman, initiated an audit to attempt to locate records of such an incident and to determine if records regarding it were properly handled. Although the GAO effort was to look at a number of government agencies, the apparent focus was on the Air Force. SAF/AAZ [Security and Special Program Oversight, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force], as the Central Point of Contact for the GAO in this matter, initiated a systematic search of current Air Force offices as well as numerous archives and records centers that might help explain this matter. Research revealed that the "Roswell Incident" was not even considered a UFO event until the 1978-1980 time frame. Prior to that, the incident was dismissed because the AAF originally identified the debris recovered as being that of a weather balloon. Subsequently, various authors wrote a number of books claiming that, not only was debris from an alien spacecraft recovered, but also the bodies of the craft's alien occupants. These claims continue to evolve today and the Air Force is now routinely accused of engaging in a "cover-up" of this supposed event. The research located no records at existing Air Force offices that indicated any "cover-up" by the USAF or any indication of such a recovery. Consequently, efforts were intensified by Air Force researchers at numerous locations where records for the period in question were stored. The records reviewed did not reveal any increase in operations, security, or any other activity in July, 1947, that indicated any such unusual event may have occurred. Records were located and thoroughly explored concerning a then-TOP SECRET balloon project, designed to attempt to monitor Soviet nuclear tests, known as Project Mogul. Additionally, several surviving project personnel were located and interviewed, as was the only surviving person who recovered debris from the original Roswell site in 1947, and the former officer who initially identified the wreckage as a balloon. Comparison of all information developed or obtained indicated that the material recovered near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device and most likely from one of the Mogul balloons that had not been previously recovered. Air Force research efforts did not disclose any records of the recovery of any "alien" bodies or extraterrestrial materials. There are two important points to note immediately. It is clear from this summary that the Air Force couldn't find any physical evidence that proves or documentation that clearly states that a balloon from Project Mogul was recovered by rancher Mac Brazel or officers from the 509th Bomb Group. Second, the Air Force has no Mogul balloon material from 1947 to show to witnesses to provide a positive identification; given the many years since the project ended, it is not surprising that no material can be located. Still, without such confirmation, the Air Force explanation relies upon inference from verbal testimony, not solid, hard evidence. THE AIR FORCE CONCLUSION Given this lack of evidence, how can the Air Force conclude that the debris near Roswell was from Project Mogul? The key statement in the Executive Summary is the phrase "Comparison of all information developed or obtained." This statement does not say "Comparison of all information available" about the incident, and that is the crucial omission (and admission) of the Air Force investigators. The Air Force certainly read almost all major publications on Roswell, including books by Randle and Schmitt, Friedman and Berliner, and the Roswell Report published by CUFOS, so they were aware of the many witnesses interviewed by the investigators. Nevertheless, they confined their interviews to only two former Air Force personnel: Sheridan Cavitt, the Counter-Intelligence Corps officer who accompanied Jesse Marcel to the ranch site; and Irving Newton, the weather officer at Carswell AFB in Fort Worth who identified the debris in Ramey's office as a standard weather balloon. They also interviewed three surviving members of Project Mogul. Given the many, many persons who have been identified as firsthand or secondhand Roswell witnesses, that the Air Force interviewed only five people is truly astonishing. Two key former military personnel whom they did not interview were General Arthur Exon, who confirmed the presence of two sites and a gouge in the ground, and Jesse Marcel, Jr., who handled the debris his father brought home. Nor did they try to interview any of the other living military witnesses mentioned in the two books by Randle and Schmitt, including Walter Haut, who distributed the press release and still lives in Roswell. Many Roswell witnesses have passed away, but interviews with some were recorded before their deaths. One would expect that the Air Force investigators would be interested in such material, but they never requested the tapes on which Bill Rickett, former second-in-command to Cavitt, discussed his knowledge of the crash and recovery, or the tapes on which Edwin Easley, Provost Marshall at Roswell in 1947, admitted that he was still sworn to secrecy about the event (which would not be true for Project Mogul after all these years). Except for Project Mogul personnel, the Air Force also decided not to interview civilians with knowledge of the event, including Glenn Dennis, the mortician who claims he talked to a nurse who assisted with autopsies on alien bodies; Bill Brazel, son of Mac Brazel; or Loretta Proctor, a former neighbor of Mac, who saw some of the debris and talked to Mac about it. The Air Force's explanation for their curious lack of interest in certain witnesses is explained on page eight of the report: While the historical document search was in progress, it was decided to attempt to locate and interview several persons identified as still living who could possibly answer questions generated by the research. . . . Again, the focus was on interviewing persons that could address specific issues raised by research and no consideration was given to try and locate every alleged witness claimed to have been contacted by the various authors. For example, one of the interviewees thought vital to obtain an official signed, sworn statement from was Sheridan Cavitt, Lt Col, USAF (Retired) who is the last living member of the three persons universally acknowledged to have recovered material from the Foster Ranch. Others were also interviewed as information developed. We surely couldn't expect the Air Force to interview every person named in the literature on Roswell, but to have interviewed only five persons calls into question the serious intention and true goal of the investigation. --- FMail 0.94 * Origin: Break the chains of their structure. (2:292/505.18) Ä [30] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 126 of 168 From : Gert Steenssens 2:292/505.18 04 Jun 95 12:03:00 To : All Subj : Comment on USAF Roswell report (2/3) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The Air Force investigators did examine thousands of pages of documents. They found no mention of the Roswell incident and the recovery of any debris, except known documents such as the FBI telex of July 8, 1947. Nor, as noted above, did they find any documents that conclusively linked Project Mogul to the Roswell debris, even when they obtained private records and, in one instance, a professional diary of A. P. Crary, another Project Mogul staffer. How, then, did the Air Force decide that a Project Mogul balloon was the source of the Roswell debris? Even though their reasoning is not laid out this neatly in the report, here are the key facts as the Air Force sees them: 1. Their search of official records turned up no "information that the 'Roswell Incident' was a UFO event." Nor was there any evidence for the existence of any classified program that is concerned with the storage or exploitation of the debris from Roswell, assuming it was from an alien spacecraft. 2. There is "no indication in official records from the period that there was heightened military operational or security activity which should have been generated if this was, in fact, the first recovery of materials and/or persons from another world." 3. Project Mogul was flying instruments from Alamogordo Army Air Field (now Holloman Air Force Base) whose purpose was classified top secret. These instruments were flown on huge balloon trains composed of many balloons and radar reflectors and so would have provided a substantial amount of potentially unusual debris. 4. Sheridan Cavitt claimed, in his interview of May 1994, that he immediately recognized the debris as part of a balloon. 5. Irving Newton, in July of this year, and consistent with what he has maintained all along, stated that what he saw in General Ramey's office was debris from a balloon. 6. The story about the Roswell event in the July 9 edition of the Roswell Daily Record, quoting Mac Brazel, provides a description of the debris that is reasonably consistent with Mogul balloon material. 7. The photos of debris taken in General Ramey's office are consistent with material from a balloon and radar reflector, and Mogul staffers shown the photos felt the material could have been from one of their balloons. 8. _Some_ of the witness testimony is consistent with material from Mogul balloon material, such as the alleged use of a purplish-pink tape with symbols on it to hold the assembly together. WHAT ROSWELL WAS NOT Before reviewing the testimony and reasoning the Air Force used in the report, we note that the Air Force investigation actually supports the work of Randle and Schmitt, who have previously been able to show that the Roswell object could not have been a V-2 rocket, an experimental aircraft or aircraft crash, or an atomic accident of some kind. The Air Force found no evidence that the Roswell incident was caused by any of these terrestrial sources, which is further proof of the quality of prior investigation on Roswell by UFO researchers. The upshot of this elimination of other terrestrial sources by the Air Force is that there remains only one possible conventional source of the Roswell debris: a Project Mogul balloon train. PROJECT MOGUL Although reports in the media, and the Air Force report itself, seem to indicate that the balloon found near Roswell was a top-secret Mogul balloon, the story is more complicated than that. Project Mogul was designed to determine whether acoustic devices could detect atmospheric shock waves from Soviet nuclear explosions. In 1947 the Soviets had not yet successfully exploded an atomic device, but we knew they were working to develop this capability. Since it was at that time not possible to fly spy planes easily over Soviet territory, we needed another long-range method of monitoring their atomic tests, and one idea was a balloon-borne, low-frequency acoustic device that was developed by personnel connected with New York University. The project was eventually abandoned when the concept was found to be unworkable. Several flights were made in June and July of 1947 that could conceivably be the source of the Roswell debris. Two types of flights were conducted by the project. One type was a test of the actual Mogul device and associated instrumentation; the other was labeled a "service flight" by Project Engineer Charles Moore and was not always logged. All flights seem to have been accounted for, in one way or another, except for Flights 2 through 4, and Flight 9. Although Flight 9 was much closer in time to the recovery of debris, the Air Force suggests that Flight 4 was the source of the debris. Given the existing Mogul records, it is clear that Flight 4 would have been launched no later than June 4. We return to this point below. These earlier flights used neoprene meteorological balloons. The report notes that "Professor Moore stated that the neoprene balloons were susceptible to degradation in the sunlight, turning from a milky white to a dark brown. He described finding remains of balloon trains with reflectors and payloads that had landed in the desert: the ruptured and shredded neoprene would 'almost look like dark gray or black flakes or ashes after exposure to the sun for only a few days.'" To remain at constant altitude, a Mogul balloon actually consisted of several balloons, as shown on the front cover of this issue. This multi-balloon array with associated radar reflectors, the Air Force suggests, came down on the Foster ranch and was found by Mac Brazel on June 14. They base this date on the story in the July 9 Roswell Daily Record, where Brazel is quoted at length. In fact, the Air Force relies heavily upon this newspaper story, the photos in Ramey's office, and their interviews with Cavitt and Mogul personnel. THE REPORT'S INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES One way to criticize and expose the weaknesses of the Air Force investigation is to demonstrate the implausibility of certain conclusions or statements. Another is to bring evidence to bear from other witnesses and sources that undermines the evidence presented in the report. A third, which we pursue in this section, is to show that there are serious problems of contradictory testimony and evidence within the report itself that call into question the Mogul explanation. To keep this article from running on endlessly, we focus here only on the most glaring inconsistencies. Extent of the debris ----------------------- Sheridan Cavitt's signed statement to Colonel Richard Weaver claims "The area of this debris was very small, about 20 feet square." The July 9 newspaper article that the Air Force uses as evidence quotes Brazel as stating that "The rubber [from the balloon] was smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter." These statements can't be made to match. One of them must be wrong. General appearance of the debris --------------------------------------- Flight 4, if it was the cause of the debris, must have lain in the sun for at least ten days (from June 4 to June 14). Professor Charles Moore stated flatly that after some exposure to the sun, neoprene would turn into "dark gray or black flakes or ashes." Neither Cavitt in his interview, nor Brazel in the newspaper story described finding this type of debris, even though the sun in June in New Mexico is quite intense at the high altitude of the Foster ranch. Once again, key witnesses provide contradictory testimony. Type of balloon ------------------ Brazel told the newspaper reporters from the Daily Record that "he had previously found two weather balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not in any way resemble either of these." This statement has never been possible to square with the original Air Force explanation that a weather balloon was the source of the Roswell debris. It also remains difficult to reconcile with the new balloon explanation because Flight 4 did not consist of any unusual balloon material, despite the highly classified nature of Mogul. Flight 4 simply consisted of several standard balloons. This is evident as well from the testimony gathered from Irving Newton (assuming he was viewing debris from Flight 4), who stated that "this was a balloon and a RAWIN target [the radar reflector]." Additionally, in his signed statement made during his interview, Cavitt claimed that "I remember recognizing this material as being consistent with a weather balloon." The Air Force can't have it both ways. Brazel said the stuff did not resemble a weather balloon; Cavitt and Newton say it did. Symbols on the debris -------------------------- According to Colonel Albert Trakowski, the Air Force project officer for Mogul, a purplish-pink tape with flower and heart symbols on it was used to hold some of the flimsy Mogul balloon train together. In his newspaper interview, Brazel does mention "some tape with flowers printed upon it" that had been used in the construction. However, Cavitt, who must have had a good, long look at the debris during the recovery, stated at one point that "I do not remember any writing at all on the thing [debris]." Even later, after being further prompted by Colonel Weaver, the interviewer, he still said, "I don't remember anything like that." If Cavitt's memory is correct, a major part of the Air Force evidence is discredited. And if we are to discount his testimony on this point, why should we accept his statements about other aspects of the event? Once again, we have contradictory evidence and testimony within the Air Force report, requiring us to accept testimony selectively from one source or another if we are to agree with the Air Force explanation. Many other oddities could be mentioned, but one more must suffice. Cavitt said that he never met Brazel, but he also admitted recovering material from the debris field. One of us (MR) knows full well how difficult it is to find the debris field without guidance from a local. There is no way that Marcel and Cavitt could have driven from Roswell to the debris field without being shown the way - all the way - by Mac Brazel. That being the case, then Cavitt certainly did meet Brazel. If his memory is so poor about such an obvious fact, what else is he misremembering or still not telling? --- FMail 0.94 * Origin: Picture me giving a damn, I said : Never ! (2:292/505.18) Ä [30] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 127 of 168 From : Gert Steenssens 2:292/505.18 04 Jun 95 12:03:00 To : All Subj : Comment on USAF Roswell report (3/3) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ THE REPORT'S LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES The most glaring, we believe, are the radically different evaluations of the debris by Marcel and Colonel Blanchard, commanding officer at Roswell Army Air Field. If Cavitt so easily recognized the debris as a downed balloon, as did Irving Newton in Fort Worth, why didn't Marcel and Blanchard? There is no logical explanation, especially because we have to assume that Cavitt and Marcel did not stand mute on the debris field, but instead talked about the material and its possible origin. And if they talked at all, then Marcel and Blanchard should at least have been cautious about going public. The Air Force, in its report, is aware of the difficulty of explaining Blanchard's and Marcel's actions. The best they can suggest is "that there was over-reaction by Colonel Blanchard and Major Marcel." Over-reaction indeed! Now there's an understatement. The boys at Roswell put out a press release, informing the world that the balloon they captured was a flying disc and jeopardizing the security of Project Mogul, even though the head counterintelligence officer has told them the debris is from a balloon, and the best explanation is "over-reaction." This explanation is made even more ludicrous by the successful careers that Marcel, and especially Blanchard, had in the Air Force after this monumental blunder, which should have resulted in instant demotion for them if their actions were what the Air Force is now claiming. It is clear from their testimony that neither Moore nor Athelstan Spilhaus, former director of the NYU Balloon Project, heard of the Roswell incident until approached by investigators. This is simply not believable if the Roswell incident was caused by one of the Project Mogul balloon flights. The events at Roswell must have been a notorious and embarrassing incident for the Army Air Force. For security reasons, it is inconceivable that key Mogul personnel were not told the Roswell debris was definitely a Mogul flight. There would undoubtably be discussions about better security arrangements after this well-publicized farce (which came close to blowing Mogul's cover). Yet Moore did not remember that Mogul had caused the Roswell incident when Bill Moore interviewed him around 1980, and Spilhaus says he was unaware of the incident until contacted this year by the Air Force. That the Air Force does not address this issue is very troubling. A third point which doesn't make much sense, if the Air Force theory is correct, is that Jesse Marcel and his family kept some of the debris after the incident and even showed it to the Cavitts. Mary Cavitt, Sheridan Cavitt's wife, sat in on the Air Force interview, just as she had done during Randle and Schmitt's interviews. At two points, she stated that Jesse brought out material when the Cavitts were visiting. After her interjection, Cavitt himself said, "I remember. He could have had some there at the house and it was, it looked like a foil of some sort, and he could have tried to burn that and it didn't burn very well. I don't know." Look closely at Cavitt's statement. First he said he remembered. Then he qualified his statements with the word "could," and finally he ended with "I don't know." This sounds to us like a man forced by the admissions of his wife to discuss an issue he would have preferred to avoid. The key question is this: If Jesse Marcel knew that the material he and Cavitt recovered was from a balloon, either weather or Mogul, would he have kept some of the debris around the house and brought it out and still played around with it, as if there was something special about it? Obviously not, if the debris was only from a standard balloon, since weather balloons were common in the Air Force. But if the debris really had strange properties, then he might keep it around for later viewing and study, only showing it to other military personnel, like Sheridan Cavitt, who had accompanied him to the site. And, too, he might keep it because he knew the public explanation for Roswell was a cover story, one that had used him as a scapegoat, so he wanted to retain evidence to prove his original evaluation was correct. INVESTIGATIVE WEAKNESSES By now it should be apparent that 1) the Air Force cannot prove that debris from a Mogul balloon train was the cause of the Roswell incident, and 2) the report is self-contradictory and logically inconsistent. The Air Force was quick in their report to criticize the work of UFO researchers because "almost all their information came from verbal reports many years after the alleged incident occurred. . . Most, however, related their stories in their older years, well after the fact." That description applies almost perfectly to the Air Force report, which relies nearly exclusively upon such evidence. Even though Project Mogul documentation exists, there is no paper or physical evidence to prove conclusively that a purplish-pink tape, for example, was used in constructing the balloon trains. Yes, former Mogul personnel claim it was so, but their statements are simply "verbal reports many years after the alleged incident occurred." The same is true for all the critical elements that might link Project Mogul to Roswell. Colonel Weaver, head of the Air Force investigation, admitted as much to Cavitt during the interview. He stated, in response to Cavitt's wishing him good luck at convincing people of the Mogul explanation, that " . . . it is going to be difficult, because like I say we have nothing other than this one formerly classified project that was occurring out there at the same time that was even a little bit 'funny', if you will." This is a telling admission of weakness because, if the source of the Roswell debris was something unusual but conventional, and there was only one project going on in New Mexico that might have caused it, why should it be difficult to convince us that this project - Mogul - was the cause? The answer, as Weaver must be aware, is that the Air Force case is weak. They, like the UFO investigators they criticize, rely on verbal reports and selective use of existing accounts. What makes the Air Force report inferior to the best Roswell investigations is its refusal to use all the available testimony, especially their star witnesses. If, as the Air Force claims, time makes memories hazy, then you would expect them to use statements from Charles Moore from around 1980 rather than 1994, since Moore's memory 14 years ago is likely to be more accurate. This is particularly true because, in the meantime, he has read much UFO material by his own admission. However, the Air Force completely ignores the following key statement Charles Moore gave to Bill Moore in 1980: "Based on the description you just gave me, I can definitely rule this out [that Roswell could be a weather or other scientific balloon]. There wasn't' t a balloon in use back in '47, or even today for that matter, that could have produced debris over such a large area or torn up the ground in any way. I have no idea what such an object might have been, but I can't believe a balloon would fit such a description." That is a damning statement that completely refutes the Mogul explanation. Since the Air Force couldn't explain why a key witness has changed his testimony, they found it convenient to ignore previous interviews. We though, are not bound by such artificial restrictions, so have to question why Charles Moore has now changed his mind. In any case, we usually accept the first statements made by a witness, before any contamination has set in. On that basis, Project Mogul could not have been the cause of the Roswell debris. There is one other flagrant lacuna that confirms to us, at least, that the Air Force was not interested in conducting an in-depth investigation into Roswell: the lack of thoughtful and insightful questions by Weaver as he interviewed Cavitt. Earlier we noted the bizarre situation in which Cavitt was able to recognize balloon debris immediately, but Marcel and Blanchard could not. Since this is such a puzzle, you would expect a competent interviewer to ask Cavitt what he told Marcel and what Marcel said in return as they discussed the debris on the ranch. But this matter was never raised by Weaver, making it obvious that he was not interested in pursuing every potentially important lead. Nor did he delve, after Mary Cavitt's comments, into what the Cavitts knew about the debris that Marcel kept at his home. It should have been obvious that the nature of that debris was crucial to the investigation. We have demonstrated how little compelling evidence there is for the Air Force's theory that a Project Mogul balloon array caused the Roswell incident. Why, then did much of the media so blindly accept the Air Force's conclusion? A full answer to that question must await another article, but we can note here the double standard applied to the UFO subject by the press. Just imagine that the Air Force had released a report on some other topic, a report in which they 1) admitted that originally they had lied, and 2) the "real" explanation was still fairly similar to the lie. Can anyone believe that the American press, given their general distrust of the military, and the history of government cover-ups during the Cold War, would automatically believe the new explanation? Yet that is exactly what much of the press has done with Roswell. It truly does boggle the mind. The Air Force report has not halted the GAO investigation or reduced the resolve of Rep. Schiff, who told CUFOS that he is determined to continue his efforts at learning the truth about Roswell. We thank and applaud him for his resolve and political courage. In this article, we have criticized the Air Force report without resorting to much of the evidence collected by investigators over the past fifteen years. When that information is brought to bear, the superficial nature and inherent bias of the report are even more apparent. Although it is very helpful to have Sheridan Cavitt on the record, as well as the Air Force itself, the Air Force report is useful for little else, and it does not contribute toward solving the puzzle of the nature of the debris found near Roswell in 1947. That is truly a shame, given what could have been accomplished. -------------------- Mark Rodeghier, Ph.D., is scientific director of the Center for UFO Studies. Mark Chesney is a CUFOS research associate. -------------------- --- FMail 0.94 * Origin: Land of the free ? Whoever told you that is your enem (2:292/505.18) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 618 of 886 From : Joachim Koch 2:2410/704.20 31 May 95 23:25:00 To : All 05 Jun 95 01:47:42 Subj : #1 INTERNATIONAL ROSWELL INITIATIVE (IRI) Bulletin#2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ **************************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* *(IRI)* **************************************************************************** INTERNATIONAL ROSWELL INITIATIVE A Quest for the Truth May 26, 1995 Bulletin #2 -- SUBJECT: THE PURPORTED 1947 ROSWELL FILM By Kent Jeffrey The last 18 months have been quite eventful with respect to Roswell. In January of last year, Congressman Steven Schiff of Albuquerque, New Mexico, announced to the press that he was requesting the General Accounting Office (GAO) to look into the Roswell case. Nine months later, the Air Force, possibly in an attempt to upstage the GAO, and in what "Newsweek" magazine called a "preemptive strike," released its own report on the Roswell incident. The Air Force report was the first official word on the Roswell matter in 47 years and basically supported (although without offering any proof) the original 1947 "cover story" that the officers of the 509th Atomic Bomb Group were fooled by the remains of a downed balloon and ML-307 radar reflector. Now, a new factor has entered the picture. A film has surfaced in England that is supposedly top-secret documentary footage taken at Roswell in 1947 by a U.S. military photographer. The existence of the film was first announced last January; however, the film was allegedly purchased in the United States almost two years ago. Needless to say, the film has generated much interest and controversy, along with a variety of opinions from UFO researchers and members of the media as to its authenticity. As author of the Roswell Declaration and coordinator of the International Roswell Initiative, I have attempted when possible to maintain neutrality on controversial issues within the UFO research community and to avoid the infighting that, unfortunately, has so often characterized this field. I have felt that maintaining a neutral stance was important and appropriate, especially in view of the fact that the Roswell Declaration and the grassroots effort behind it has had the unified support of the three largest and most respected UFO organizations in the United States, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), and the Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR). Furthermore, over 17,000 people, from varying backgrounds, including hundreds of scientists and engineers, have signed and submitted copies of the Roswell Declaration. While I have primarily concentrated my efforts on achieving the objective of the Roswell Declaration -- an Executive Order to declassify any existing U.S. government-held information concerning UFOs or extraterrestrial intelligence -- I have also become involved with researching the Roswell case. In the past two years, I have made five trips to Roswell, visited the debris site at the Foster (Brazel) ranch, and interviewed many of the surviving Roswell witnesses. I believe such experience gives me a definite advantage in evaluating any alleged Roswell film footage. The film in question is presently in the possession of a company in London, Merlin Productions, owned by a Mr. Ray Santilli. On Friday, May 5, 1995, there was a special showing at the Museum of London. There were approximately one hundred people present: members of the media (including the BBC), potential buyers of the film, and UFO researchers from the United Kingdom and other countries. Despite the fact that the film is totally unauthenticated, it has received extensive publicity in Europe. For example, the film has been featured in full-length feature articles in London's "Sunday People" and Berlin's "Morgen Post." Because of the dubious nature of the film and the questionable way in which it is being handled by those in possession of it, there is a tremendous potential for damage to the entire Roswell effort. Because I was the only Roswell researcher at the May 5th showing, I feel a responsibility to put neutrality aside and speak out. Before going into specific details about the viewing, I would like to state up front and unequivocally that there is no (zero!!!) doubt in my mind that this film is a fraud. I might add, however, that if, against all odds, what I consider the impossible did occur, and this film actually turned out to be genuine, I would be one of the first to celebrate, as researchers would finally have in their possession the Holy Grail of evidence necessary to break the Roswell case wide open. The actual showing of the film took place just after 1:00 p.m. in a small auditorium that is part of the Museum of London complex. A handout was distributed at the sign-in table consisting of a copy of the alleged MJ-12 briefing papers and a yellow cover sheet referencing the 1947 Roswell crash and the 509th Bomb Group (at Roswell Army Air Field). Merlin Productions was apparently very concerned about pictures being taken because everyone was physically searched (frisked) for cameras upon entering the auditorium. There was no speaker or announcement to formally welcome those present or to introduce the film. This seemed somewhat bizarre and discourteous, as people had come from all over the world for this showing. Also conspicuously absent was a person on stage afterward to publicly answer questions pertaining to the film. After having viewed what was presented, however, it was not hard to understand why this was the case. Prior to the showing, anticipation was high. In the previous three months, Ray Santilli had put out the word through those in close contact with him that the film consisted of 15 10-minute reels (in their original canisters) of 16-millimeter black-and-white film, for a total of 150 minutes. He reported that it was dated as 1947 vintage film stock and that it had been acquired from a former army photographer, Jack Barnett, who claims to have shot the footage and then, incredibly, to have stolen 15 canisters of film, without the theft having been detected. Word was also put out that there was 45 minutes of footage taken at the actual recovery site showing a number of soldiers in uniform and a large crane lifting the crashed craft onto a truck. Additionally, Santilli claimed that one of the scenes showed President Truman behind a glass partition with such clarity that someone capable of lip reading would be able to determine his words when he spoke. At the showing, we would see none of this -- no debris site, no soldiers, no crane, no crashed saucer, no President Truman. Instead, we saw just 20 to 25 minutes of one single scene -- an autopsy of a supposed alien body in a small white room. At about 1:05 p.m., the lights dimmed and the film started rolling. Before the actual picture began, a few short statements scrolled by on the screen with reference to the film having been "acquired from the cameraman who originally shot the footage" and to the copyright being "exclusively owned by Merlin Communications." Interestingly, one would think that if the film were genuine, the copyright would be "exclusively owned" by the United States government. Also, contrary to what had been said previously about "10-minute reels," there was now a statement on the screen that the film was recorded on "three-minute" reels. I recently learned from a good friend in the film industry that 1947 vintage 16-millimeter film came on reels of 100 feet, which at 16 frames per second would be about three minutes each. Perhaps this information was also "recently learned" by Merlin Productions and that is why we are now seeing references to "three-minute" reels instead of the originally reported "10-minute" reels. The film opened abruptly with its single scene of a small operating or autopsy room with plain white walls and a table in the middle containing an unclad body lying face up. Two individuals in white anti-contamination suits, complete with hoods and narrow, rectangular glass faceplates, were the only figures visible in the room. A third person, dressed in white hospital-type garb, was visible through a large glass partition, or window. Although he was outside the sealed room standing behind solid glass, he was wearing a surgical mask that covered his entire face. Perhaps there was concern that he might later be recognized? The features of the body lying on the autopsy table in this film do not even come close to what was described by the 1947 Roswell witnesses. What was visible on the screen was apparently a slightly doctored human corpse. While in theory it could have been an elaborate dummy, the chances of that are remote. I, along with others with whom I've spoken who were also at the viewing, have little doubt that the body was a doctored human corpse. If such is the case, it would make this one of the most despicable and deplorable hoaxes ever perpetrated. It would mean that those who put this atrocity together butchered the body of a once-living human being (a woman in this case) solely out of greed. If this is determined to be the case, a criminal investigation might well be in order, as using a human body for such unscrupulous purposes is not only highly unethical, but also illegal in most places. Although the exact height of the body was difficult to determine, it was definitely shorter than normal, probably somewhere around four and a half to five feet. The head was somewhat large relative to the torso, but not extraordinarily so. The body was also barrel chested and apparently bowlegged, and had an overall stocky appearance. Other anomalous features included no visible body hair, small and somewhat odd-shaped ears, a small (slightly abnormal-shaped) nose, slightly large eyes covered by black membranes (which were later removed), a distended or bloated abdomen (ascites), six digits on the feet (polydactylism), apparently six digits on the hands, and legs so badly swollen that the definition of the knee was hardly recognizable. According to medical people with whom I spoke, none of these features would have been too difficult to produce artificially. The black membranes covering the eyes, for example, could have been placed over the eyeballs with the same apparent ease with which they were removed during the alleged autopsy. The sixth digit could have been added using the techniques of plastic surgery, although polydactylism itself is not that uncommon a condition. It was also pointed out that some of the abnormalities of the body could have been attributable to a genetic defect or even a physical ailment prior to death. For example, congestive heart failure could explain the swelling (edema) of the legs and the bloated appearance of the abdomen (ascites). Despite the above-noted anomalies, the body essentially had the appearance of a human being. It had what was basically a human head, a human torso, human skin, human legs, human arms, human shoulders, human hands, and human feet -- all in basically the right proportions. The ratio of the length of the upper arms to the lower arms, as well as the ratio of the upper legs to the lower legs, was exactly what would be expected for a human being. The musculature of the arms and legs appeared the same as the musculature of human arms and legs. The relative positions of the forehead, eyes, nose, ears, mouth, and chin were very close to what would be expected on a human head. Although the eyeballs appeared larger than normal, the size of the eye sockets did not appear that abnormal. Other distinctly human features included the mouth, lips, teeth (the front-lower teeth were momentarily visible in one shot), jowls, noticeable protrusions of underlying bones in just the right places, including the jaw, shin, and clavicle, a brief glimpse of what appeared to resemble a flattened nipple area (although no protrusion of the breast), female genitalia, fingers, a thumb, toes, and even a brief glimpse of a toenail (a human vestigial remain!). During the supposed autopsy procedure, the body cavity was cut open lengthwise from the throat to the groin and various internal organs were removed and placed in metal pans. The focus, or resolution, was so poor, however, that whatever was removed appeared simply as dark blobs, with detail being almost impossible to discern. There did appear at times to be a small amount of dark fluid oozing from the body cavity. Basically, the body shown in this film appeared to be that of a short, adult, human, Caucasian female, with the age being difficult to determine. The swollen legs and other minor "modifications," such as an extra digit on the hands and feet, and the "doctoring up" of the eyes and ears, resulted in an overall slightly freakish appearance. >>>>>to be continued>>>>>>see part #2>>>>>>>>>>> Joachim Koch Berlin, May 31st, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg ____________________________________________________________________________ The *International Roswell Initiative (IRI)* was founded by *Kent Jeffrey* (USA), *Joachim Koch* and *Hans-Juergen Kyborg* (both Berlin, Germany) in 1994. It is officially greatly supported (among many others) by MUFON, CUFOS and FUFOR and became one of the most successful international grassroots efforts in Ufology. The central document is the "Roswell Declaration" which was published together with additional material in this bulletin board. If you have missed parts of the material or the Declaration itself please contact Joachim Koch via email or look into the World Wide Web for: >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell<< this links to the index of all the Roswell Declaration articles. Notice the capital 'IUFOG'. The actual petition page is at >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell/roswell-dec.html Please sign the Declaration -NOW! Thank you! Joachim Koch IN: koch@wad.fido.de --- CrossPoint v3.02 R * Origin: I'll see you on the dark side of the moon (2:2410/704.20) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 617 of 886 From : Joachim Koch 2:2410/704.20 31 May 95 23:21:00 To : All 05 Jun 95 01:47:40 Subj : #2 INTERNATIONAL ROSWELL INITIATIVE Bulletin#2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ **************************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* *(IRI)* **************************************************************************** >>>>>continued from previous message #1>>>>>>> Professor Jared Diamond of the UCLA Medical School, in his book "The Third Chimpanzee," states that there is a "98.4 percent" similarity in the genes of humans and chimpanzees (our closest primate relative). The resemblance between a chimpanzee and a human being is slight compared with the resemblance between the body in this film and a normal human being. The body in the film was extremely human, albeit somewhat abnormal in appearance. It does not take a scientific mind or much imagination to realize that it would require a genetic similarity far greater than the 98.4 percent between man and chimp to produce a being as close in appearance to a normal human as was the body on the autopsy table in this film. It is common knowledge that the human organism, like all other life forms on earth, is the product of approximately three billion years of evolution, involving untold numbers of mutations and trillions of chance combinations of genes. Exobiologists tell us that the chances of billions of years of evolution on another planet resulting in "the fine structural details" of a human being are all but zero. While differences would be vast, there would, however, likely be some basic similarities between us and any other species that became technologically advanced. Such features as two legs (bipedal), two arms, a high level of dexterity, two eyes (binocular vision for depth perception), and a large brain would almost surely be required for any species to evolve as a tool user and maker. I recently discussed this matter with an acquaintance who is a science professor at a Midwestern university and who has a background in biochemistry, human biology, human genetics, and exobiology. He agreed that parallel evolutionary development in another world over billions of years leading to an advanced organism so nearly identical to a human being would never happen. The laws of probability rule it out. It can therefore be stated definitively that the body in this film is not of extraterrestrial origin. The film is a fraud. In addition to the "fatal flaw" of anthropomorphism -- probably the result of scientific illiteracy as well as sheer ignorance on the part of its producers -- the film has other problems, most of which are of a more circumstantial nature. For example, the photography did not seem consistent with what one would expect for the documentation of an historic medical event. There was excessive panning and poor focus with the majority of closeups. Also, most of the closeup shots were too fleeting, allowing no time for serious study or observation. The gestures of the two "physicians" seemed exaggerated and even staged at times. Although it is purely speculative, one would think that for such a monumental event, there would have been a large team of specialists directly participating, along with a number of additional specialists observing from behind the glass partition. Establishing this film as a hoax is much easier than determining the source of the hoax. It is possible that Ray Santilli and Merlin Productions are themselves victims of a scam. However, it must be said that their actions in the last few months do not seem consistent with those of an organization confident that it is in possession of the "genuine article." Among other things, Mr. Santilli has mentioned a secret viewing for church officials, a private viewing for the counter-intelligence wing of the FBI, verification of the film by Kodak as 1947 vintage, and, most recently, an offer from an undisclosed client represented by a Washington, DC, law firm for $1.8 million to purchase the film "as is." None of these claims has been verified. Furthermore, no one has seen any of the alleged footage of the debris site or that showing President Truman. Even more significantly, no one has been able to verify the existence of the photographer, Jack Barnett. If this film were genuine and such a photographer actually existed, the government would undoubtedly know his identity. Since he reportedly stole and subsequently sold 15 canisters of top-secret U.S. government film, he would be in serious trouble. His best protection would be to go public immediately. The government would then be in a catch-22 situation because if they so much as raised a finger against him, they would be instantly validating the entire Roswell event. On January 19, 1995, I wrote a letter that was passed on to Mr. Santilli in which I mentioned the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm I retained two years ago for the purpose of providing legal counsel for Roswell witnesses. I pointed out the importance of the photographer in validating the film and offered the services of the law firm to represent the photographer. That offer was never accepted. After having viewed the May 5, 1995, showing of the film, I now know why. Either the supposed photographer is one of those behind this hoax, or else he does not exist. Over the last years, the three major nonprofit UFO research organizations in the United States, along with a number of private individuals operating on their own time and at their own expense, have put a lot of resources and effort into the admirable cause of getting to the truth of what could well be the "story of the millennium." Although it is still very much an uphill struggle, much progress has been made in bringing to the Roswell case serious and credible attention on the part of the media, the public, and a number of politicians. It is unfortunate that there are now those who would unscrupulously exploit the Roswell Event for their own financial gain. It is important that the UFO community make every effort to get to the bottom of this matter as soon as possible, including calling for a criminal investigation if it is determined appropriate. Standing by and doing nothing could be a serious mistake. Unfortunately, although they may be in the minority, there are journalists and television producers out there who are far more interested in the possible sensationalistic appeal of this kind of film, than in bringing people the truth. As the hype and publicity surrounding this film continue, there is a real danger that people will start to connect the reality of the Roswell event with the authenticity of this film. Then, once the film is publicly exposed as a hoax, which it inevitably will be, there is a real danger that people will tend to assume that the whole Roswell event is a hoax. Fortunately, however, as experts obtain more information about the true nature of this purported Roswell footage, the entire matter of this film should be nipped at the bud and put to rest. Attention and resources can again be concentrated on the actual Roswell event, the best documented case in the history of the UFO phenomenon. __________________________________________ Addendum: The investigation of the Roswell case is still very much an ongoing affair. Despite the passage of nearly 48 years, new witnesses are still being sought by researchers, as many of those involved were young enough at the time to still be alive today. Reportedly the GAO report on Roswell will be out in July. It is also reported that the Air Force will be coming out with a follow up to their September 8, 1994, report on Roswell which, according to the report itself, was supposed to be their "final word" on the subject. ("The lady doth protest too much." -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet") The International Roswell Initiative is also an ongoing concern. With the count of Roswell Declarations well over 17,000 so far, signed Declarations are still being received. A special Web page for the International Roswell Initiative is now being set up on the Internet. With this new feature, it will be possible to fill out and "sign" a Roswell Declaration "electronically." This could increase the numbers significantly. It will also be possible to download from the Web page all future bulletins of the International Roswell Initiative. (Previous bulletins will also be made available.) Bulletins will be issued periodically and will cover events concerning the progress of the Roswell investigation as well as the Roswell Initiative. The 1994 Air Force report (another "piece of deceit," albeit of a different sort) will also be addressed in a future bulletin. The temporary address of the Roswell Web page is: http://erau.db.erau.edu/~elston/IUFOG/roswell The permanent address, available in late June, will be: http://www.qlink.net/roswell Your help in distributing International Roswell Initiative bulletins and the Roswell Declaration is greatly appreciated. For further information on the International Roswell Initiative, contact: International Roswell Initiative 3105 Gables Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30319 USA (404) 240-0655 Phone/Fax Email: roswelldec@aol.com The Mutual UFO Network 103 Oldtowne Road Seguin, Texas 78155 USA The Center for UFO Studies 2457 West Peterson Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60659 USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- forwarded from: Joachim Koch Berlin, May 31st, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg ____________________________________________________________________________ The *International Roswell Initiative (IRI)* was founded by *Kent Jeffrey* (USA), *Joachim Koch* and *Hans-Juergen Kyborg* (both Berlin, Germany) in 1994. It is officially greatly supported (among many others) by MUFON, CUFOS and FUFOR and became one of the most successful international grassroots efforts in Ufology. The central document is the "Roswell Declaration" which was published together with additional material in this bulletin board. If you have missed parts of the material or the Declaration itself please contact Joachim Koch via email or look into the World Wide Web for: >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell<< this links to the index of all the Roswell Declaration articles. Notice the capital 'IUFOG'. The actual petition page is at >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell/roswell-dec.html Please sign the Declaration -NOW! Thank you! Joachim Koch IN: koch@wad.fido.de --- CrossPoint v3.02 R * Origin: I'll see you on the dark side of the moon (2:2410/704.20) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 837 of 887 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 04 Jun 95 11:24:02 To : All 06 Jun 95 01:40:52 Subj : Roswell - Santilli ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Subj: MESSAGE FROM RAY SANTILLI Section: COMMUNION (UFO) To: new age B+ 03 June 1995 19:12:19 From: Ray Santilli, ######## #22840 A great deal of nonsense has been written since news of our footage first came to light. In fact I am amazed and disappointed that so-called UFO investigators, researchers and "scholars" can trade so openly in misinformation, gossip and rumour. Especially when correct information is so easily acquired. It would be impossible to go into detail here, however some general issues: THE QESTION OF AUTHENTICITY:- When we were first made aware of the footage there was an obvious need to establish its authenticity. Of course we had the benefit of knowing and dealing directly with the cameraman however we went to great lengths to satisfy ourselves that his story was genuine (we only had to satisfy ourselves not the world). We had sight of, not only the cameramans many old photo albums which clearly proved his story (life story) but his enrolment and discharge documents, his diary and a wealth of other material all of which was easy to check. In addition the footage itself contained film stock code which we were able to confirm as 1947. (solid square next to a solid triangle on selected frames). All in all we were, and still are, totally convinced that the cameraman is genuine as is his story. We had all we required in terms of proof to warrant the financial investment in acquiring the footage. Although a risk, especially as it was a fundamental condition of the transaction that we gave an absolute guarantee the identity of the cameraman would remain confidential we were happy to proceed. WHY WON'T WE SPILL THE BEANS AND GIVE THE WORLD CHAPTER AND VERSE ON THE CAMERAMAN???????? >From the cameramans point of view there were, and still are, a number of major considerations :- 1. The welfare of his family (especially grandchildren) 2. His sworn oath to his country 3. The ownership of the material 4. The IRS. I think we can all appreciate his concerns... WE MUST BE IN IT FOR THE MONEY!!!!!! Once we had acquired the footage our plan was very simple, we would shoot a documentary and eventually release the footage in a controlled manner. There was never any question of us wanting to sell the footage on, and indeed we have still even now not approached any third party whatsoever in an attempt to sell the footage. Make no mistake we could have sold this film 50 times over from the incredible offers we have received. There isn't a week that passes without an offer coming in. (even Stanton made an offer of $100,000 on behalf of an associate of his). Of course we want to earn money out of it, we are a commercial company but we will do it in our own way. It is not a case of take the money and run.. THE PRESS Unfortunately a leak occurred, and without a single photograph or statement from me the press ran riot. In order to alleviate the pressure we came up with what we felt would be a good idea. A screening NOT A PRESS CONFERENCE OR AUCTION just a screening. We timed it May 5th to coincide with the V.E. DAY celebrations, this along with the fact we still refused to release any materials to the press, meant that the story would die a natural death until we were ready. As far as press was concerned the plan worked. WHY WON'T WE WORK WITH THE WORLD OF UFOLOGY??????? I learnt very quickly that the world of UFOLOGY is akin to a major international corporation with the same infighting and internal politics that go along with it. Rightly or wrongly I will not throw the very valuable footage we have into that arena. I prefer to work with independent advisors and experts in their own field. People and organisations that are neutral have no declared interest in UFO'S. THE PHONE, THE CLOCK AND THE CREATURES ????? There has been a great deal written about this however for the record : THE PHONE................around from 1945 THE CLOCK.................around from 1938 approx THE CREATURES........all femail THE FUTURE???? I don't know.......... It changes with each day.. I fully appreciate that footage such as this should only come about after years of research and investigation. The fact that we stumble across it, have no real interest in UFO's ...I accept is hard to swallow. Fact is stranger than fiction.... Best regards, Ray Santilli 3 June 1995 ========================================== --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä [30] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 118 of 146 From : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464.12 08 Jun 95 19:37:00 To : All Subj : URGENT! IRI NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL FROM TH ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * This msg is forwarded from ALT.PARANET.UFO * Originally From: Joachim Koch in UseNet * To : All * Date: tuesday 6 June 1995 22:02:00 e.de!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!fub!wad!joachim.koch From: From: koch@wad.fido.de Subject: Roswell **************************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* *IRI* **************************************************************************** We received another Santilli update by George Wingfield, British UFO researcher and chief editor of the main crop circle magazine THE CEREALOGIST. We try to keep you informed. Please watch out for our subject headline:"*URGENT! IRI NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL*". Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- New screening of "Roswell" film promised June 2, 1995 ---------------------------------------- Ray Santilli assured me today that he would soon give a further screening of part of the alleged Roswell footage which has not yet been seen. This would take place in London at a date yet to be fixed but roughly between June 8 and June 14. This time we would see the "debris field" (presumably on the Brazel ranch) and the camera would show alien symbols which are visible on some parts of the wreckage. He said that interested parties would be able to have a look at and note the shape of the symbols and possibly provide help in translating them.This might be of great interest to people. (One could also compare them with those Roswell I-beam symbols on a modern replica of the I-beam which is pictured in the March 1995 MUFON Journal!) When asked whether he had the exact date of the autopsy scene (shown in London on May 5th), which supposedly took place in a military hospital in Dallas or Fort Worth, he replied "I do".He did not give me the date but promised to discuss this when we meet. In a sequence not yet shown, which apparently forms part of the autopsy sequence, President Truman is seen behind a glass window on one side of the operating theatre. Stanton Friedman (who met with Santilli at length on June 1) has said that the Truman Library has no record of the president being in Texas between July 1 and September 30, 1947. He said the reason that the autopsy sequence was the first to be shown was that this footage always had good light contrast.Other segments of film needed to be "light-blasted" and cleaned. The Truman footage was being cleaned currently and would hopefully be available by August for its public showing (i.e. at the BUFORA conference). Santilli clarified various points and denied some rumours concerning his company which have been put out on the Internet.Firstly he says his company, Merlin, was not the company which provided publicity and sponsorship for Doug & Dave's circle- faking claims in September 1991. Merlin, he tells me, came into existence in 1992 and has had nothing to do with ufology or with crop circles. He "had never heard of Doug & Dave" until recently. Secondly Merlin Productions/Merlin Communications is not in receivership as has been claimed. What role, if any, has been played by Mr Carl Nagatis is still unclear. I will at some stage try to establish whether Nagatis is Santilli's publicity agent or not. Carl Nagatis is the person who co-authored a book on alien abduction with Philip Mantle: "Without Consent". Obviously one needs to evaluate this film with some skepticism (with a small "s") and defer drawing any firm conclusions until at least we have had a chance of examining and dating the actual footage. Until then we need to be scrupulously accurate in reporting all the circumstances. This has not always been the case as regards certain material put out on the Internet about Santilli or the film. I will continue to report what Santilli says and, if ever that can be proved to be untrue, we should not hesitate to say so. However, unsubstantiated reports about him, his company, and his associates do not do ufology (in the name of which this material is promulgated) any great credit. George Wingfield ____________________________________________________________________________ forwarded from: Joachim Koch Berlin, May 6th, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg ____________________________________________________________________________ The *International Roswell Initiative* was founded by *Kent Jeffrey* (USA), *Joachim Koch* and *Hans-Juergen Kyborg* (both Berlin, Germany) in 1994. It is officially greatly supported (among many others) by MUFON, CUFOS and FUFOR and became one of the most successful international grassroots efforts in Ufology. The central document is the "Roswell Declaration" which was published together with additional material in this bulletin board. If you have missed parts of the material or the Declaration itself please contact Joachim Koch via email or look into the World Wide Web for: >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell<< this links to the index of all the Roswell Declaration articles. Notice the capital 'IUFOG'. The actual petition page is at >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell/roswell-dec.html Please sign the Declaration -NOW! Thank you! --- April V1.03+ * Origin: Adventure and Imagination meet at the Final Frontier. (2:280/464.12) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 837 of 946 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 10 Jun 95 09:10:02 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:24 Subj : Santilli's Statement 1/3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 6 Jun 1995, 17:42 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 6 Jun 95 09:34:16 GMT Message-ID: <00991781.8973C358.79@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Regarding... >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 13:13:39 +1000 >From: John Stepkowski >Subject: Statement From Ray Santilli >Hi All. >At last, the man at the centre of the alleged "Roswell Film" controversy, >Ray Santilli, speaks out on CI$. >Comments? Hi John, Thanks for cross-posting this. >Subj: MESSAGE FROM RAY SANTILLI Section: COMMUNION (UFO) > To: new age B+ 03 June 1995 19:12:19 >From: Ray Santilli, ######## #22840 >A great deal of nonsense has been written since news of our footage first >came to light. Sure has: "Concerning an item on "The Afternoon Shift", a BBC Radio 4 programme broadcast at 3.00 pm BST on 11 April 1995: The third interview was with Ray Antilles (Santilli) who is the present "owner" of the film. According to Mr Antilles:- The film stock has been tested and the opinion is that it is authentic. The film is currently being examined by a Home Office Pathologist." "I just heard a UK radio programme where Ray Santilli said his Roswell film will be shown at the end of this month. He also said it (or a video, it wasn't clear) was being examined by a Home Office pathologist." >In fact I am amazed and disappointed that so-called UFO investigators, >researchers and "scholars" can trade so openly in misinformation, gossip >and rumour. You should spend some time here mate. > THE QESTION OF AUTHENTICITY:- >We had sight of, not only the cameramans many old photo albums which >clearly proved his story (life story) but his enrolment and discharge >documents, his diary and a wealth of other material all of which was easy >to check. What we require are details of how this documentation was so "easily" verified and with whom exactly. All we have here are expanded claims, again with no supporting evidence. None whatsoever. >In addition the footage itself contained film stock code which we were able >to confirm as 1947. (solid square next to a solid triangle on selected >frames). We already know that the Kodak coding system runs in 20 year cycles. Santilli is therefore incorrect in claiming this confirms the date as 1947. But surely he knows this by now and we can but surmise why he makes such a fundamentally misleading claim. >Although a risk, especially as it was a fundamental condition of the >transaction that we gave an absolute guarantee the identity of the >cameraman would remain confidential we were happy to proceed. Which is at odds with Phillip Mantle's statement in his letter to "The Independent", dated March 29, 1995: "Now we have this detailed film and the cameraman, who went on to a distinguished career in the private sector, is prepared to go on the record in public to explain what he saw." And even more so with his apparent revelation at the recent San Marino symposium: "Santilly got the footage from Jack Barnett (real name, officially confirmed by Mantle in his speech)..." How do we equate this with Santilli's statement that, "we gave an absolute guarantee the identity of the cameraman would remain confidential"? >WHY WON'T WE SPILL THE BEANS AND GIVE THE WORLD CHAPTER AND VERSE ON THE >CAMERAMAN???????? >From the cameramans point of view there were, and still are, a number of >major considerations :- > 1. The welfare of his family (especially grandchildren) If, as Santilli claims, it was "easy to check" the authenticity of the cameraman's service background, it would presumably be infinitely easier for the U.S. government to also do so and anonymity would be theoretically detrimental to his own and his family's safety from any speculative government reprisals. So who does he fear? An enraged CSICOP, led by a crazed Philip Klass? > 3. The ownership of the material Which, in the case of genuine footage, would presumably be the U.S. government. > 4. The IRS. Does Santilli mean that the "cameraman" would rather not disclose the payment received, as he wishes to evade paying tax on it? > 2. His sworn oath to his country As in, "I love and respect my country so much that I will deviously sell their property which I have stolen from them and I promise not to disclose the proceeds to the IRS."? Continued... --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 838 of 946 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 10 Jun 95 09:10:04 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:24 Subj : Santilli's Statement 2/3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 6 Jun 1995, 17:42 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 6 Jun 95 09:34:40 GMT Message-ID: <00991781.981B872E.89@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo > WE MUST BE IN IT FOR THE MONEY!!!!!! >Once we had acquired the footage our plan was very simple, we would shoot >a documentary and eventually release the footage in a controlled manner. >There was never any question of us wanting to sell the footage on, and >indeed we have still even now not approached any third party whatsoever >in an attempt to sell the footage. >Make no mistake we could have sold this film 50 times over from the >incredible offers we have received. There isn't a week that passes >without an offer coming in. (even Stanton made an offer of $100,000 on >behalf of an associate of his). >Of course we want to earn money out of it, we are a commercial company >but we will do it in our own way. It is not a case of take the money and >run.. An interesting contrast with comments attributed to Chris Cary, brought in by Santilli to market the film, at the recent San Marino conference: "Marketing strategy: we asked Cary what Santilli's and his intentions are exactly as of showing/selling the footage. Cary explained the plan is to have public interest raised by gradual revelations (still pictures from the footage will be released in June) up to the climax with the footage showing at the 8th International UFO Congress in Sheffield, next August: at that moment they will sell the rights for each nation, so to gain a maximum price." Whatever happened to the documentary? Incidentally, Stanton Friedman was in London this past weekend to deliver a lecture and took the opportunity to speak to Santilli and Chris Cary for approximately 2 hours. He advised them that he had been authorised by a third party to purchase some footage _IF_ he was himself completely satisfied that it was authentic. At no time during the meeting was he given access to any footage and no such offer was therefore made. > THE PRESS >Unfortunately a leak occurred, and without a single photograph or >statement from me the press ran riot. It does seem that Santilli did not welcome the resulting press coverage. A curious reaction. >In order to alleviate the pressure we came up with what we felt would be >a good idea. A screening NOT A PRESS CONFERENCE OR AUCTION just a >screening. >We timed it May 5th to coincide with the V.E. DAY celebrations, this >along with the fact we still refused to release any materials to the >press, meant that the story would die a natural death until we were >ready. As far as press was concerned the plan worked. This is an extraordinary claim. Colin Andrews noted that amongst others invited to attend the screening were the following: George Wingfield Carlton TV - UK BBC radio 1 - UK Daily Express UK John Holman - UK Bob Kiviat (Fox/Paramount Films) Michael Hesemann (Germany) Researcher from Italy and Germany Kent Jeffries - USA NBC - USA Many other media... total approx. 100 This is hardly a scenario for defusing interest in the film, no matter what the competing stories, however, Santilli didn't seem to appreciate the initial press coverage and we can but note his contention here. It could of course be that, bearing in mind who was invited, it _was_ planned to extract considerable media coverage from this screening but that simply didn't materialise due to the timing of the event and the nature of it. >WHY WON'T WE WORK WITH THE WORLD OF UFOLOGY??????? >I learnt very quickly that the world of UFOLOGY is akin to a major >international corporation with the same infighting and internal politics >that go along with it. Rightly or wrongly I will not throw the very >valuable footage we have into that arena. I prefer to work with >independent advisors and experts in their own field. People and >organisations that are neutral have no declared interest in UFO'S. Who was the first person to see and announce the existence of the footage - Reg Presley, a well known crop circle and UFO enthusiast. Is Reg someone who has "no declared interest in UFO'S"? Who has been instrumental in promoting the film and arranging a screening at their forthcoming conference - BUFORA. Do BUFORA come under the heading of "organisations that are neutral (and) have no declared interest in UFO'S."? Shortly after the Museum of London screening, where was Chris Cary to be found - at the Third International Symposium on UFOs and Related Phenomena, held by Centro Ufologico Nazionale (CUN) in San Marino. Do CUN also come under the heading of "organisations that are neutral (and) have no declared interest in UFO'S."? Santilli's comments here indicate his dilemma. He doesn't want to relinquish control of the alleged original footage or copies thereof to "UFOLOGY", but he is quite prepared to take advantage of the UFO "community" if this is in his own interest. > THE PHONE, THE CLOCK AND THE CREATURES ????? >There has been a great deal written about this however for the record : >THE CLOCK.................around from 1938 approx How exactly was this verified and by whom? >THE CREATURES........all femail (Presumably he means female). How exactly was this verified and by whom? Continued... --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 839 of 946 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 10 Jun 95 09:10:04 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:24 Subj : Santilli's Statement 3/3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 6 Jun 1995, 17:42 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 6 Jun 95 09:37:06 GMT Message-ID: <00991781.EF402794.95@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo >Fact is stranger than fiction.... Without any corroboration of the claims Santilli is making concerning the origin of the film so far shown, we have no resulting facts. His statement is notable only by the absence of such facts. We still have no evidence whatsoever that: 1. Jack Barnett exists. 2. The original 16mm film exists. 3. Any footage of the crash site exists. The first two are central to his claims and we must bear in mind that it would be a relatively simple matter to have the date of the original 16mm film publicly authenticated and this seemingly continues to pose a problem for Mr Santilli. If he wishes to deal in facts, we should not loose sight of the _fact_ that the footage shown so far contains nothing to identify it with the Roswell case. The claim that the name of "Dr Bronk" is visible on enlargement has only been made by Santilli and Phillip Mantle and I have yet to see Mantle confirm he saw this himself. Given Santilli's initial false claims that the film stock had been tested and authenticated and that the film was being examined by a Home Office pathologist, we can hardly take anything else he says at face value. On an aside, I note the wholesale absence of any direct reference to Phillip Mantle, a major player in the game so far, or the forthcoming BUFORA conference, which seems to be central to the marketing of the footage. As Phillip's involvement in this affair has not been without some controversy, perhaps he will welcome Santilli's attempt to clarify events and also appreciate the respite. Purely by chance, no doubt, I understand the timing of Santilli's statement coincided with a BUFORA council meeting. Cheers, James. --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 844 of 946 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 10 Jun 95 09:21:10 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:26 Subj : "Santilli On Radio - 11/4/95 1/3" ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 8 Jun 1995, 14:08 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 8 Jun 95 11:04:19 GMT Message-ID: <00991920.731EE551.52@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo I have obtained from the BBC, a transcript of "The Afternoon Shift", a BBC Radio 4 programme broadcast at 3.00 pm BST on 11 April 1995. The program featured brief interviews with Loretta Proctor, Walter Haut and Ray Santilli. The latter's comments are particularly interesting: The Afternoon Shift - Tuesday 11th April Presenter: Louis Robinson U.F.O's Discussion Louis: If you're sitting comfortably we'll begin. It's an old story about little green men which in the last few weeks has taken a new and eerie twist. The place Roswell, New Mexico, the date June 1947. A farmer called William Brazel came across wreckage spread over an area nearly a mile across, he picked some of it up and took it home he tried to scour it with a knife, burn it, dent it, nothing. He and his family became convinced they were looking at the debris of an alien space craft which had crash-landed. Farmer Brazel showed it to one of his neighbours Loretta Proctor she's now eighty years old and she joins me from her home in New Mexico. Hello Loretta: Loretta: "Good morning". Louis: "Why did you think it was the wreckage of a UFO?" Loretta: "At that time there were a lot of sightings around and there was reports out you know, there was a reward out for one and we just thought since we didn't think it was a weather balloon - we had seen one of those before." Louis: "So when you actually held this piece of metal in your hand what was it like?" Loretta: "It really wasn't metal it looked like a lightweight wood and it was very lightweight and very hard - different looking to anything I've seen". Louis: "Am I right in thinking that even though you tried to cut it with a knife it didn't even make any impression on the ..?" Loretta: "No, it didn't, no it didn't make any impression." Louis: "Now was this gentleman Mr Brazel, was he the sort of chap to make up stories?" Loretta: "No he wasn't, no he definitely found it" Louis: "What happened to that piece of wood or metal or whatever it was?" Loretta: "I don't know when he took it home with him one evening when he left here and I don't know what he did with it. It may have been someone took it to Roswell I don't know" Louis: "Loretta did anything happen afterwards? Did the authorities come down on you and say could you give up all the pieces of metal or whatever it was?" Loretta: "No. I've never had any of the authorities come around." Louis: Now what Loretta Proctor and many others witnessed is known as the Roswell incident and it has become part of UFO folklore. There is even a Roswell UFO museum it's been open for just over three years and its taken 50,000 visitors. The man who runs it is Walter Horte. Now in 1947 an official press statement was released saying the wreckage of a flying disc had been recovered and it was Walter himself who issued that press statement. Louis: "You issued it. Who told you to issue it Walter?" Walter: "Colonel Blanchard who's the Base Commander he's the one that basically told me exactly what he wanted in a press release - that was to the effect that we had in our possession a flying saucer." Louis: "Right so what happened to change it because that Press statement was later denied wasn't it - it was rescinded" Walter: "Well it was rescinded by General Rayme about four and a half hours later. The material had been flown to his office and he showed it to the newsmedia but it wasn't the material that Major Marcel took to Fortworth that was shown to the press it was a substitute it was part of a weather balloon." Louis: "So you're saying that the weather balloon that - the airforce later said it was a weather balloon and they showed it to the press that was a different thing to the thing you saw originally right?" Walter: "Well that was different than what had been picked up at the sight and it was different from the material that was flown from Roswell to Fortworth I did not see any of this material." Louis: "No, alright it was just the press statement that you released. Thank you Walter" Now this is all if you like history and a lot of the people who are interested in UFO's know all this so the latest development is the interesting one and the continuing saga of these Aliens. Ray Santilli he's just bought a film which claims to throw more light on the incident. Louis: "First of all Ray what exactly do you do?" Ray: "We are publishers and we are also film documentary makers." Louis: "What does this film show?" Ray: "The film that we have shows the vehicle recovery, debris recovery and also autopsy of one of the creatures that were found". Louis: "You mean an actual alien being." Ray: "Absolutely" Louis:: "How do you know its an alien being?" Ray: "It certainly doesn't look like you or I". Continued... --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 845 of 946 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 10 Jun 95 09:21:10 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:26 Subj : "Santilli On Radio - 11/4/95 2/3" ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 8 Jun 1995, 14:09 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 8 Jun 95 11:05:28 GMT Message-ID: <00991920.9BF4277F.109@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Louis: "Is it big or small?" Ray: "It's medium in size compared to the people that are surrounding it. It has a large head it most certainly is not human". Louis: "Has it got arms and legs?" Ray: "Yes it has." Louis: "Is it male or female?" Ray: "It looks from our - I mean we're not medical experts but it looks female and we have a pathologist, a senior Home Office pathologist, looking at the footage right now." Louis: "Right - where did you get this from?" Ray: "We got it from the original cameraman, the cameraman that shot the footage. He was sent down in June not July of 1947 which was approximately a month before the reported sighting in the newspaper what was it - the Roswell Times I don't know, but apparently the area was cordoned off and cleaned up in its entirety or almost up until July 7th when the small area had been discovered and some debris had been found but that was as far as the military was concerned the area had been completely cleaned up by then". Louis: "Two quick questions - is it a hoax?" Ray: "No - certainly not" Louis: "In that case when can all of us see it in order to make up our own minds." Ray: "We have a showing on 28th April for interested parties, researchers and investigators and so forth and we'll decide what to do with the footage after that" Louis: "How do you authenticate something like that?" Ray: "You can only authenticate the film stock you can't authenticate the content." Louis: "You bought the actual film not a copy of it" Ray: "No the film the original film". Louis: "How come he was allowed to keep it?" Ray: "That's a very long story and I'm not sure you've got the time for it right now" Louis: "So we assume that he was allowed to keep it or he secreted it away." Ray: "Yes" Louis: "If it was hush hush why didn't someone come and get it from you?" Ray: "We have not had any contact at all from anyone in authority so I can't answer that question" Louis: "Okay, so we'll look forward to seeing this and hopefully on television as well in some time in the future". Ray: "Absolutely" Louis: "Okay Ray well thank you." Louis: By the way if you do have a little problem like I do - I've often thought if you meet a little green man who said take me to your leader who would you take him to the Pope, Prime Minister or Paul McCartney. Don't ring us with the answer to that question! ---------------------------------- Ray: "We are publishers and we are also film documentary makers." Uh-huh. Ray: "The film that we have shows the vehicle recovery, debris recovery and also autopsy of one of the creatures that were found". The vehicle recovery! Now that could be page 1 news around the world. Ray: "It looks from our - I mean we're not medical experts but it looks female and we have a pathologist, a senior Home Office pathologist, looking at the footage right now." Really. And yet, no subsequent mention of this? This claim is being investigated. Continued... --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 846 of 946 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 10 Jun 95 09:21:12 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:26 Subj : "Santilli On Radio - 11/4/95 3/3" ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 8 Jun 1995, 14:09 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 8 Jun 95 11:07:45 GMT Message-ID: <00991920.ED8F4849.146@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Ray: "We got it from the original cameraman, the cameraman that shot the footage. He was sent down in June not July of 1947 which was approximately a month before the reported sighting in the newspaper what was it - the Roswell Times I don't know, but apparently the area was cordoned off and cleaned up in its entirety or almost up until July 7th when the small area had been discovered and some debris had been found but that was as far as the military was concerned the area had been completely cleaned up by then". Well, you can't accuse Mr Santilli of not being controversial. This is a puzzling claim and deserves further consideration. If we are witnessing a hoax which has been entirely perpetrated by Santilli and associates, i.e., if there is no "Jack Barnett", then why would they complicate matters to the nth degree by placing events approximately one month before the numerous documented accounts? This instantly discredits the likely authenticity of the film and makes little sense. If however, there is a "Jack Barnett" and the film was purchased from him in good faith, it could be that Santilli is simply repeating what he was told. This seems the more likely of the two scenarios, but without supporting evidence that "Barnett" exists, we can only speculate. It's certainly an intriguing twist. Ray: "You can only authenticate the film stock you can't authenticate the content." A previous posting from someone who had heard part of this broadcast and claimed that Santilli had stated the film had been authenticated, would appear to be inaccurate. Louis: "You bought the actual film not a copy of it" Ray: "No the film the original film". Not a copy? The first person to see and publicise the footage was Reg Presley. This apparently took place shortly after Christmas '94 and only a couple of weeks afterwards, on the "Good Morning With Anne and Nick" breakfast chat show, Reg apparently had this to say: "This old guy, now about 76, said, 'If you think that this Elvis Presley footage is fantastic, what do you think about this?', and from underneath his bed he pulled out 15 cartridges of old film, and he said, 'I thought this was so important at the time that I made a copy and I didn't tell anyone and I've said nothing since.'" Not exactly, "the film the original film" and nothing but the original film. Overall, an interesting snapshot in the history of events so far. And if Santilli's doubtful claim that "we have a pathologist, a senior Home Office pathologist, looking at the footage right now", can be proven to be false, then he is a documented liar. Cheers, James. --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 850 of 946 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 10 Jun 95 13:07:44 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:26 Subj : Mantle Interview, 1/4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The following interview was conducted after the "Roswell" screening on May 5th. ......................................................... ......................................................... After attending the May 5th London Museum screening of the alleged "Roswell Film", researchers Robert Irving, John Lundberg and Rod Dickinson obtained an interview with Philip Mantle, the Director of Investigations for BUFORA, and prominent commentator on the Ray Santilli film. ================================================= An Interview with Philip Mantle, post-Roswell alien autopsy screening, London, 5th May 1995; Copyright Robert Irving, 1995 Rob Irving (turning on tape recorder) : You're a media man aren't you? Philip Mantle: Yeah. There are lots of rumours circulated about this .... so-called piece of film. One is that it was all a publicity stunt created by me to help promote the Roswell movie starring Kyle MacLachlan and Martin Sheen, because BUFORA were trying to help promote it, that's not true; good idea, I wish I'd thought about that, but I didn't. Another rumour was that Ray Santilli had made the film for whatever reason, again I can't find any substance to that rumour. Another rumour is that it's some kind of Brazilian or South American B-movie or docu-drama type thing, that was (a) offered to Jacques Vallee when he was down in South America ... Rob Irving : It's a snuff movie! Philip Mantle : Yeah ... and he said no thank you. Or (b) that it was offered to an American TV company and they said no thank you, they identified it for what it was, and sort of every other rumour in between that you can think of, none of which can be, at this moment in time, proved, or ... whatever... John Lundberg: Have you made any moves to try and get it authenticated? Philip Mantle : Yeah, on behalf of BUFORA we put a two page proposal to Ray, part of which is to have it analyzed at Kodak. Kodak have NOT analysed it, they've agreed to do so, and also a private film company in London that has a lot of access to special effects and this kind of thing ... John Lundberg : What's the name of that company? Philip Mantle : I forget. I have it in a file at home, I can't remember what it is. Rob Irving : But, haven't you known Ray Santilli for a couple of years? Philip Mantle : I'll just finish off ... we also said if he would just give us a copy of the film, on video will do, we'll then get it checked out by a historian and a doctor or somebody who was in the medical profession. Rod Dickinson : Someone familiar with the surgical procedures of the time? Philip Mantle : Yeah. We haven't got anybody lined up to do that, I'm not going to line somebody up to do it until I have a copy in my hands. And I've said if you want me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, I'd gladly do that in the meantime, I mean that's not a problem. But yes, we knew of the story almost two years ago now. Ray contacted me and told me about it and I basically said, Yeah, a nice story, but that's all it remains, its a story; I mean this was just on the end of a telephone and I just said ... 'show me', it's a simple enough thing to ask. Again I said if you want me to sign something I won't reveal it, I won't speak about it, that's no problem. So, various appointments were made to view the film, they were always cancelled by Ray, so in the end I just said 'Oh look, forget it', and I put it in writing as well, its just another fancy story, there've been hundreds of the damn things. So then earlier this year I was reviewing the "Roswell" movie and I thought, I wonder if that chap still claims to have this film, so I phoned him up out of the blue, he says 'yeah, but you don't believe me Philip', well I can't believe it until I see it with my own eyes. So we arranged to make an appointment to see him, which we did, saw a piece of film, wouldn't convince you of anything, but it was interesting. So, I asked him there and then if he would speak at our conference in August which was already organised ... John Lundberg : How much footage did you actually see? Philip Mantle : I saw about seven minutes to start with. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 851 of 946 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 10 Jun 95 13:07:44 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:26 Subj : Mantle Interview, 2/4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Rod Dickinson : And are we right in thinking that its not what we saw [today, at the Museum of London "screening"]? Philip Mantle : Not what you've seen today, no. Rod Dickinson : How does it differ? Philip Mantle : I'll tell you about that in a minute ... and I said speak at our conference, show the film, the conference was already planned and organised, so to my surprise he said 'yes'! So, a colleague of mine by the name of David Clarke phoned me a couple of days later, out of the blue. I haven't spoken to David for perhaps six months and he's a journalist on the "Sheffield Star" - he was writing some article and he said 'give us a few quotes about your conference, I'll do a little snippet now and I'll do you a bigger piece later on'. So I told him about all the speakers and I said 'oh, by the way ...', Santilli, the film, etc. So he ran that in the "Sheffield Star", then the Whites press agency from Sheffield rang me a couple of days later and they said 'is this correct?' ... 'yeah', they asked me a few more questions. I told them basically what I knew and what I'd seen and they sent the story around the world and then we started getting phone calls quite literally from around the world. John Lundberg : When was this Phil? Philip Mantle : Oh, I don't know ... about six weeks ago. John Lundberg : Right, but before that Reg [Presley] had been on TV and he broke it really, didn't he? Philip Mantle : Yep, he broke it. So, the story went quite accidentally around the world. Rob Irving : What's Reg's appraisal? Philip Mantle : I don't know, you would have to ask him. So the story went quite accidentally around the world. John Lundberg : So the whole spate of publicity in March came out of the David Clarke 'Sheffield' piece? Philip Mantle : Yes, that's it, from a couple of column inches it went around the world. And then we had some more conversations with Ray, we saw another autopsy last week, similar to today, but not the same it was different and then of course you've seen what we have today. John Lundberg : Have you seen the crash site at all? Philip Mantle : No. John Lundberg : And what about the rumour that [President] Truman was meant to be there then? Philip Mantle : That's a rumour, I haven't seen that. Rob Irving : What do you think about the film now? Philip Mantle : I don't think any more now than I did originally, it's interesting, it's ambiguous, I neither believe it or disbelieve it, you know, I mean, I think when you are dealing with something like this whatever beliefs you may have one way or the other you put them in your back pocket and lock them up. We've put a very sound proposal to him to have the film analysed, he will either accept it or he won't. If he doesn't it will obviously cast doubt on the authenticity of it, but the crux of the matter is not whether we have it tested at Kodak or anywhere else, it's the camera-man ... Rob Irving : Do you know the name of the camera-man? Philip Mantle : I've been told a name, whether it's genuine or not I don't know. Rob Irving : It's a similar name to one of the original witnesses. Philip Mantle : Yeah. Let's say that Kodak say 'yeah, its fifty years old' and all this lot, I don't think that for a minute they would say that the image on the film is what people claim it is, they'll only test the age of the film. The crux of the whole matter is the camera-man. Rob Irving : What do they test it for? Philip Mantle : They can check the nitrates of the film, they can check if its fifty years old. The film company in London can test if it's, say, a montage like they did in Forest Gump, when he meets Nixon [sic] and what have you, they have told me in writing that if that is the case they can prove that, so I'll leave that in their hands, I'm not a film technician. Whatever, they'll run it through the computer and so on. But I know as well as you gentlemen that if you put enough money and enough time and effort into faking a piece of film that it can be done, it can pass the tests, that's why you must have access to the camera-man, did he have the knowledge, the technology ... John Lundberg : A tripod! --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 852 of 946 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 10 Jun 95 13:07:44 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:28 Subj : Mantle Interview, 3/4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Philip Mantle : [laughter] Yeah, did he have two hands to try and focus it! All that kind of thing and also did he have the motive as well, there has obviously got to be some kind of motive, so until that time, until that day happens it's all up in the air. Rod Dickinson : But don't you think its odd to hold a press conference without any questions? Philip Mantle : Ridiculous! I offered to open the proceedings for him, and just again highlight what I've said to you gentlemen and point out what we've offered to do in the ways of analysis, he should have taken questions, but again if he did take questions he would only be quoting the camera-man. Its difficult because a lot of people are asking me questions and I can only quote what Ray Santilli has told me, I can't say 'that's the truth', I can only quote him. So he's in a very awkward situation, trying to defend it. Rob Irving : Have you had any cause to actually believe that one of us had something to do with the film? Philip Mantle : No. Rob Irving : Well, where did that come from ? John Lundberg : UFO Magazine basically implied it. Philip Mantle : There are a lot of people who have not had access to the film, not seen it, they're extremely peeved. I don't want to mention any names but there are well known researchers in this country and overseas who are pissing their pants because they haven't seen it, but they believe they've got some kind of divine right, I only got involved in it quite by accident you know, they should have come today. Rob Irving : Has anyone from Quest seen it? Philip Mantle : No. Rob Irving : Because Tony [Dodd] is claiming to have seen it. Well I understand that somebody said that Tony had seen it ... Roy Lake [London UFO Studies] ... Philip Mantle : As far as I'm aware, no one from Quest has seen it. I wouldn't show them it anyway, but that's purely personal [laughter]. But there's all kinds of silly rumours, none of which amount to anything. And I dare say that after today there will be even more rumours flying around. Philip Mantle : The idea that it was a B-movie, that's a rumour worth following up. Rod Dickinson : Yeah, but that's actually based on a total misunderstanding of alleged snuff movies. South America is where snuff rumours allegedly came from, and actually it was shown that they didn't come from there at all, that they were actually [B-movies] produced initially by an American producer and then when they were put in the hands of a distributor the distributor changed the end of the movie and added on the end of it this [fake] footage of someone being killed, and then distributed it as genuine footage that had come from South America. It's the same myth. Philip Mantle : It's mythology, of folklore whatever you like to say, but it's something we have to check out. One of the rumours was that it was offered to Jacques Vallee, so I've written to Jacques just to say 'is it true or is it not', obviously he will say yeah or nay, hopefully. The other one was that I think it was the "Unsolved Mysteries" programme on American television, that they'd seen it and said it's a Brazilian B-movie. I've got their address, I'll write to them and ask. John Lundberg : I was surprised by your piece in _The Independent_ [newspaper] ... Philip Mantle : How pro it was ... John Lundberg : Yeah! I was a bit taken aback actually ... Philip Mantle : Well there's more than one way to skin a cat John, you know that [laughter]. John Lundberg : Yeah, but that was a very positive way of skinning a cat though, wasn't it? Philip Mantle : Well yes, but if you've seen other things that I wrote ... John Lundberg : And you should have said 'Holy Grail' not 'Turin Shroud'. Rob Irving : Yes. Philip Mantle : Erm, ... I'll say that next time! [laughter] --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 853 of 946 From : John Powell 1:261/1201 10 Jun 95 13:07:44 To : All 12 Jun 95 01:46:28 Subj : Mantle Interview, 4/4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Rob Irving : You don't want to get into trouble with Lynn Picknet do you. Philip Mantle : No, no, no. But it's true. If you look at the Shroud of Turin they've been analysing it up hill and down dale for donkeys years and they're still arguing about it. John Lundberg : Right, that's true ... Philip Mantle : ... and I would hazard a guess here now, that the same will happen with this piece of film because the will to believe in some quarters is so strong it doesn't matter what you do. They carbon dated the Shroud and said, 'oh, it's a mediaeval forgery', but now they're saying 'ah, but the Shroud was on fire at one time and it cocks up the carbon dating', that's because the will to believe in it is so strong. It's the same with this piece of film now, I've spoken to a few people here, taken their opinions and some are you know, 'YEAH' and some are saying 'well I'm not so sure' and others are saying 'well, nah' - the will to believe in some people is so strong. [break in tape recording] Rob Irving : Do you think its an exercise in tantalisation? Philip Mantle : Well yes, it is. I mean Ray's a business man, there are a lot of television companies who are represented here today, you can almost hear the cheque books rustling in their back pockets. John Lundberg : Has he sold the rights to Fox in America? Philip mantle : I don't think so. But there's nothing wrong with that, he's a business man and if somebody is prepared to buy the rights without any analysis, I mean good luck to them, I don't have a problem with that. [break in tape recording] Rob Irving : Could you repeat what you just said about the camera-man? Philip Mantle : Well the crux of the whole matter is *** *** [the camera-man's name] - he claims that the crash took place three or four weeks prior to the dates that are in all the books and that the autopsies were conducted in Dallas, Texas not in Roswell. I've even offered to go to America and interview him in person. Until somebody does, or he comes to Sheffield to the conference and stands on the stage, it remains even more ambiguous than it is, we have to have access to the camera-man. Rob Irving : I heard from somebody recently that the news from America was that they had checked up on his credentials in the military and there weren't any. Philip Mantle : Well they don't know who he is. The other story I've heard is quite the opposite, that there are 250 [camera-man's name] s that were employed by the US military! [laughter] So you believe what you want to believe, again I don't know. **END OF TAPE RECORDING** Copyright Robert Irving 1995. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201) Ä [30] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 83 of 105 From : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464.12 15 Jun 95 22:32:00 To : all Subj : URGENT! IRI NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * This msg is forwarded from ALT.PARANET.UFO * Originally From: Joachim Koch in UseNet * To : All * Date: wednesday 14 June 1995 12:25:00 From: joachim.koch@wad.fido.de (Joachim Koch) From: koch@wad.fido.de Subject: Roswell **************************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* *IRI* **************************************************************************** We received another statement from *George Wingfield*, well known British UFO researcher and chief editor of the main crop circle magazine "*THE CEREALOGIST*". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANTILLI FILM : GW Bulletin #3 June 12, 1995 ------------------------------ There are still many inconsistencies in the story of the Roswell film and we need to check very carefully where these originate from. Much that does not check is from the Internet rumour mill and can't be directly attributed to Ray Santilli. Nevertheless I have the impression there are some inconsistencies in what has been told to various people who have seen segments of the film, or at any rate what they have subsequently reported. As regards President Truman I know there has been word, from several people who spoke with Santilli, of Truman's presence. Reg Presley implied to me that Truman was filmed at the debris site, but he (Reg) had not seen that footage. Someone else (maybe on Internet) maintained that Truman was seen through the glass window in the room adjoining the autopsy and "if one could lip-read you could tell what he was saying". It was implied that Santilli had said this. Certainly Santilli never told me this and I'm not too sure where this came from. When I spoke to Santilli on the phone on June 2 he said that he would shortly show the "debris" sequence: "the symbols are quite clear, very visible. Lots of debris." I then asked "Now, how about the Truman footage ? Any chance of that ? The Truman ...?" He replied: "We've got a whole load of it that's being cleaned at the moment, so as soon as all of it comes through, hopefully by the August showing, we'll have everything through by then. Certainly as every day passes by, we get more material that comes forward, so that's very good." (He then changed the subject). To me this appeared to confirm that there WAS Truman footage which I had assumed from what I'd heard previously. It was only when I talked to him in London on June 5, that he said he didn't know if there was any Truman footage, implying that he'd never seen any. I did ask to tape this session for the sake of accuracy but he said that he'd prefer I didn't. However I made notes, and what he said was that "he didn't know if Truman appeared or not". "There was a great deal of panic at the time and officialdom from everywhere flew into Dallas. All the officials were in there --the room off the operating theatre."That was what he'd been told by the cameraman. He had also been told that the crash happened in June [i.e. at least 3 weeks, apparently, before the accepted date--GW] just outside an Apache Indian reservation. General MacMullen [of SAC] sent them all [i.e. military personnel from Washington D.C.] down to the crash site to clean up the area. When that was finished it was found a small area had been missed [presumably the Brazel ranch] and the military had to go back in and clear up all over again. Now the only Apache reservation which fits the bill is the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation which is about 60 miles WSW of Roswell, just south of Ruidoso. The Brazel ranch is near Corona, 75 miles NW of Roswell, and 70 miles due north of Ruidoso. So cameraman "Jack Barnett" not only set the date back quite considerably but also moved the goalposts! As for the quantity of film which Santilli purchased: Reg Presley had definitely said 14 canisters of unspecified length.A recent Net item (forwarded to me by Joachim Koch) from Craig Meekins, whose father was in the military and used this sort of camera with 16 mm film in the 1940s, says the length of film was about 5 minutes per canister. On June 5 when I spoke to him in London, Santilli told me the following: he had 30 minutes of good quality film and about 60 minutes of very poor to poor quality footage. There were 21 canisters of 3 minutes each plus one canister which contained 8 or 9 minutes of film. Also "lots of scraps" and some "film with empty frames". I suppose this could all add up to 90 or 91 minutes which is the figure usually given for the total, so I didn't argue any further on that one. He did say that he would show the footage in its entirety at the Sheffield (BUFORA) conference in August. George Wingfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- forwarded from: Joachim Koch Berlin, June 14, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg ____________________________________________________________________________ The *International Roswell Initiative* was founded by *Kent Jeffrey* (USA), *Joachim Koch* and *Hans-Juergen Kyborg* (both Berlin, Germany) in 1994. It is officially greatly supported (among many others) by MUFON, CUFOS and FUFOR and became one of the most successful international grassroots efforts in Ufology. The central document is the "Roswell Declaration" which was published together with additional material in this bulletin board. If you have missed parts of the material or the Declaration itself please contact Joachim Koch via email or look into the World Wide Web for: >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell<< this links to the index of all the Roswell Declaration articles. Notice the capital 'IUFOG'. The actual petition page is at >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell/roswell-dec.html Please sign the Declaration -NOW! Thank you! --- April V1.03+ * Origin: Press any key to continue or any other key to quit. (2:280/464.12) Ä [30] DFF: Alles over UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO.028 Ä Msg : 64 of 95 From : Rick Speelman 2:282/533 18 Jun 95 17:33:00 To : All Subj : Prive :-))) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Deze file kreeg ik vandaag binnen,het is overgeklopt uit de Pive,je weet wel,dat roddelblad. ----------------------------------------------------- Deze tekst komt uit de Priv‚ (Week 24 - 17 JUNI 1995) ----------------------------------------------------- Geheime UFO-film zal de wereld schokken! De UFO-wereld staat op z'n kop! Een BBC-producer heeft beslag weten te leggen op een ULTRA-GEHEIME militaire FILM over de ramp van een 48 jaar geleden in Nieuw-Mexico neergestorte VLIEGENDE SCHOTEL. Een fragment dat onlangs in Londen werd vertoond, is schokkend en laat o.a. twee patholoog-anatomen zien die autopsie verrichten op EEN BUITENAARDS WEZEN.'Deze film zal bewijzen dat de aarde is bezocht door buitenaardse intelligenties,'meent ufoloog HANS VAN KAMPEN. Er ligt EEN MENSACHTIG WEZEN van circa 1,35 meter lengte op de operatietafel. Twee in het wit geklede artsen voeren een autopsie uit. Het hoofd is groot in verhouding tot het lichaam, met nauwelijks oren en een neus, een kleine mond zonder tanden en grote, diepliggende zwarte ogen. Met opperste verbazing keek een select gezelschap wetenschappers en UFO-deskundige op 5 mei j.l. in een Londens museum naar een fragment van circa 20 minuten van een uiterst curieuze film, die door toeval in handen is gekomen van BBC-producer REG PRESLEY. De totaal 91-minuten durende film is een MILITAIR TOPGEHEIM en is een registratie van mysterieuze gebeurtenissen die in 1947 rond de Amerikaanse stad Roswell in Nieuw-Mexico plaatshadden. Op de ochtend van de tweede juli 1947 ontdekte de Amerikaanse ingenieur BARNEY BARNES in de vallei van San Agustin - 400 kilometer westelijk van Roswell - het ongeveer tien meter grote wrak van een vreemd voertuig. Het had een 150 meter lang sleepspoor in de bodem getrokken alvorens het tegen de voet van een heuvel tot stilstand was gekomen. Barnes zag op de metalen wrakdelen vreemde tekens, die leken op hi‰rogliefen, het schrift uit de tijd der farao's. Archeologie-studenten die vlakbij aan het graven waren troffen in het veld vier lichamen van mens-achtige wezens aan. E‚n ervan toonde tekenen van leven. De andere drie waren dood. Twee stoffelijke overschotten waren totaal verminkt. 'In bezit van een UFO!' Binnen enkele uren was de plek des onheils volledig afgezet door militairen van het Roswell Army Airfield. Barnes en de studenten kregen het bevel te zwijgen over alles wat ze hadden gezien. Een helikopter vloog de buitenaardse wezens over naar de Wright Patterson luchtmacht-basis in Dayton, Ohio. De wrakstukken van de UFO werden naar de Carswell Airforce Base in Texas getransporteerd. Op 8 juli 1947 verklaarde RAAF-luitenant WALTHER HAUT tegenover de pers: 'Wij zijn in het bezit van een schotel die gevonden is op het veld van een boer. Wij noemen het een UFO, omdat de herkomst absoluut niet is vast te stellen.' Daags erna echter trok luchtmachtgeneraal RAMEY zijn verklaring weer in: 'In feite zijn de brokstukken die wij konden verzamelen niet die van een vliegende schotel. Het gaat om fragmenten van een ballon-sonde, die gebruikt werd voor meteorologische doeleinden.' Listig maakte de generaal gebruik van een ander incident dat ook op 2 juli plaatsvond, in Corona, 30 kilometer van Roswell. Daarbij werd het wrak van een met foto- en zend apparatuur volgepakte sonde van een stratosfeer-ballon gevonden. De ballon bleek deel uit te maken van het mislukte Mogol-project, waarbij de Amerikanen vanaf grote hoogte de Sovjet-Unie bespioneerden. De generaal deed het voorkomen alsof het hier ‚‚n en hetzelfde incident betrof, om de pers op een dwaalspoor te brengen. UFO-deskundige HANS VAN KAMPEN maakte uitvoerig studie van het Roswell- incident en sluit niet uit dat de UFO 'crashte' na een botsing met de spionage-ballon. Er is veel over Roswell gepubliceerd, maar omdat vrijwel alle betrokkenen het stilzwijgen bewaarden bleef de waarheid lang versluierd. Ook president TRUMAN, die alle dossiers naar het Witte Huis liet komen, liet zich er nooit over uit. De militairen hadden de gebeurtenis echter laten filmen. De laborant die de film moest ontwikkelen was z¢ verbijsterd door wat hij zag, dat hij in het geheim een kopie van de film maakte. De inmiddels 76-jarige laborant bood het film-document bijna een halve eeuw later te koop aan. De film is nu in bezit van een zekere RAY SANTILLY. Blijkens laboratoriumonderzoek is de film inderdaad rond 1947 opgenomen en zijn de beelden niet gemanipuleerd. 'Wat gebeurde er met 'E.T.'? Intrigerend is wat er gebeurde met het UFO-bemanningslid dat de crash heeft overleefd. Vast staat dat op last van het Witte Huis en het Pentagon alles in het werk is gesteld om het Roswell-incident top-secret te houden. De psychologische schok die zou uitgaan van de erkenning dat onze planeet wordt bezocht door hogere intelligenties van elders uit het heelal, paste tijdens de Koude Oorlog niet in de strategie van de Amerikaanse regering. Nu alsnog toegeven dat er een 'close encounter of the third kind' heeft plaatsgehad, zou betekenen dat het Amerikaanse volk jarenlang door zijn presidenten voor de gek is gehouden. Volgens sommige bronnen slaagden experts van de CIA er in de taal van het buitenaardse wezen te decoderen, zodat zij in staat waren kennis te nemen van zijn galactische herkomst en te profiteren van zijn technologische know-how, die de onze eeuwen vooruit is. Dit alles zou zich hebben afgespeeld in de hermetisch afgegrendelde 'Hangar NR.18' van de Wright Patterson Basis in Dayton. Volgens een gepensioneerde luchtmacht-overste die bij het project betrokken was, is de vriendelijke E.T. in de loop der jaren tachtig overleden. Met de stoffelijke overschotten van de andere drie ufonauten schijnt zeer slordig te zijn omgesprongen. Eerst hebben ze dagenlang in een veldhospitaal in de prairie gelegen, waarna een miliaire Roswell-arts een balsem-expert benaderde met de vraag of hij de lichamen kon conserveren. Uiteindelijk zijn ze in een loden kist, luchtdicht, op een geheime plek ter aarde besteld. De film toont o.a. zo'n twintig minuten de autopsie op het niet verminkte stoffelijke overschot. 'Vijf vingers en een duim...' PAUL DAMON, redacteur van het Britse blad Truth Seeker Review, behoort tot de uitverkorenen die op 5 mei j.l. in Londen het autopsie-fragment van de film mochten zien. Hij beschrijft het wezen aldus: 'Het had vijf lange vingers en een duim aan elke hand en zes tenen aan elke voet. De beenstructuur van de voeten en enkels leek erg op die van de mens. Het lichaam vertoonde geen uitwendige geslachtsorganen, hoewel ik toch iets van een vaginale opening meende te zien. Het had totaal geen beharing, ook niet op de schedel. De onderbuik was ballon-achtig gezwollen. De artsen legden met een lengte incisie de inwendige organen bloot. Hoewel ik de indruk had dat er een borstkas was, zag ik geen ribbenkast. Ze verwijderden diverse inwendige organen, die voor mij onherkenbaar waren, uit het lichaam en legden ze in een porseleinen kom. Rond beide ogen namen ze stukjes zwarte huid weg; er kwamen grote witte oogballen zichtbaar. Delen van de hersenen werden uit de opengezaagde hersenpan verwijderd. Gedurende deze operatie bewoog de cameraman zich steeds rondom het lichaam en hinderde daarbij de patholoog-anatoom die de ingrepen verichtte. Diens collega maakte van alles aantekeningen.' Deze waarnemingen sluiten aan bij de verklaring van een gepensioneerde luchtmachtofficier uit Roswell, die al enkele jaren geleden onthulde dat de buitenaardse wezens geen identificeerbaar spijsverteringssysteem en evenmin rode bloedcellen en lymfocieten bleken te bezitten.'Iedereen begreep dat de kleine, bleke mannen afkomstig moesten zijn uit een ander universum.' De Roswell-affaire veroorzaakte in Amerika zoveel deining dat een half miljoen burgers het Congres een petitie hebben aangeboden ('The Roswell Declaration'), waarin vanwege de vele tegenstrijdigheden in de offici‰le verklaringen tekst en uitleg werd ge‰ist. Het Congres gelaste een onderzoek, waarvan het rapport nog deze maand zal verschijnen. 'Uitzending op de BBC!' Hans van Kampen:'Er bestaat de kans dat men de UFO-crash in verband gaat brengen met een topgeheim militair experiment dat op de raketbasis Alamogordo bij Roswell werd uitgevoerd. Kort v¢¢r de Japanse overgave hadden de Amerikanen op een eilandje in de Pacific tien splinternieuwe Japanse raketvliegtuigen buitgemaakt, het type 'Mitsubishi J8M', dat werd bestuurd door zelfmoord-piloten. Op Alamogordo zouden ze zo'n projectiel hebben afgevuurd met een Japanse krijgsgevangene aan boord. Ik denk echter niet dat men die lezing nog staande kan houden als de film aantoont dat het om een UFO van buitenaardse herkomst gaat.' Dinsdag 19 augustus a.s. zal de complete film worden vertoond in de Universiteit van het Britse Hallam voor een groot gezelschap geleerden. Daarna wil de BBC de film geheel of gedeeltelijk uitzenden. Volgens UFO-deskundige Hans van Kampen staan we door deze film aan de vooravond van de ontsluiering van ‚‚n der grootste mysteries van deze eeuw en wordt het voor ufologen een lange, hete zomer...! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ik heb hierna wel een paar vragen,zoals,wie is die Hans van Kampen. Greetz,Rick ....Debunking is just another word for blindnes. --- JetMail 0.99beta18 * Origin: HUB Nederlands Ufo Net-050-426667 20.00-08.00 (2:282/533) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 437 of 702 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 17 Jun 95 10:15:00 To : All 21 Jun 95 01:38:18 Subj : "Roswell Film": Update ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 13 Jun 1995, 1:26 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 11 Jun 95 22:35:54 GMT Message-ID: <00991BDC.8F6A7603.19@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Regarding... >Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 11:02:19 GMT >From: neil@ADM1.PH.MAN.AC.UK >Subject: Re: "Santilli On Radio - 11/4/95 3/3" Hi Neil, >Ok so he should have discribed the films as : >"original 1st generation copies taken at the time, from the original >footage" >But it's a hell of a mouthfull to keep comeing out with. ? Aren't we >picking the odd nit here ?. No, we are not. Reg's comments are important. He had only recently met Ray Santilli and seen the film and there was no "internet rumour mill" or "Mantle rumour mill" to confuse the issue. Also note Reg's additional comments that, "the film has been analysed and it is original 1947 footage" and that, "there's 15 reels of this, so there's 150 minutes of the crash site, debris, and the autopsy". There is no available evidence that the film has ever been authenticated as 1947 footage and there are only allegedly 14 16mm reels, apparently containing some 91 minutes of film. It's important to note every discrepancy in this affair, particularly the initial claims which were made. There are however significantly more insightful comments which have now emanated from Santilli. Based on what the "cameraman" allegedly states, Santilli has now provided a timescale for the crash retrieval and autopsies and most importantly has named the General apparently in charge of the military operation. He also now apparently claims that the film was bought only some six months or so ago. Aside from adding further intrigue to the Reg Presley showing, which must therefore have occurred shortly after the film was bought, this is completely at odds with what has previously been claimed in a reported statement from Santilli. >I think it has been known all along that the alledged films were copied >from the originals at the time by cameraman X. Well, it depends which story you believe. There are at least versions for each day of the week. Have you heard the claim that not all of the film was originally taken by the U.S. government, that the cameraman simply kept the remainder and this is what has now surfaced? To illustrate the discrepancies which exist, note the following claims concerning the alleged footage showing President Truman: 1) "In a sequence not yet shown, which apparently forms part of the autopsy sequence, President Truman is seen behind a glass window on one side of the operating theatre. ...The Truman footage was being cleaned currently and would hopefully be available by August for its public showing (i.e. at the BUFORA conference). Reported conversation with Ray Santilli on 2nd June. George Wingfield. "He did not know if there was any footage showing President Truman... ...but the cameraman had shot footage of the president when he was present at the Dallas autopsy." Reported conversation with Ray Santilli on 5th June. Private mail. Fortunately, the information which Santilli has now released (I do not have permission to post this, but expect it to shortly appear publicly) is at last something definitive which can be checked. The name of the General is a vital piece of information and will hopefully prove to be significant in determining the fate of this story. Cheers, James. --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 441 of 702 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 17 Jun 95 10:18:04 To : All 21 Jun 95 01:38:18 Subj : "Roswell Film": Update 1/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 14 Jun 1995, 14:02 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 14 Jun 95 16:46:24 GMT Message-ID: <00991E07.3B7857B3.73@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Regarding... >Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:16:13 GMT >From: neil@ADM1.PH.MAN.AC.UK >Subject: Re: "Roswell Film": Update Hi Neil, >The media at large and I include USENET in this, only seems to have caught >on to this story in March but I have some BBS postings from well before >(Feb) that would seem to confirm that there was already quite a "rumour >mill" in operation then in the circles, (no pun intended) that Reg >frequents and that a number of people could have seen the film at that >time. That's very interesting. Given that Ray Santilli now seems to be claiming he only actually bought the film some six months ago, the circumstances surrounding it's initial appearance are important and I would be very grateful if you could either post these extracts or, if you prefer, forward a copy directly. >I think Reg might have been letting his mouth run away with his enthusiasm. >It would only need someone to say "Oh there's about 10mins on each reel and >and there's fouteen or fifteen of them" bingo, you've got your TV >statement. Yes, that's quite likely. However, it's again important to document the exact chronology of events and if Reg was perhaps the first person outside the Santilli camp to see the film and that's what he reported, then that must be noted. >I do agree that the film stock must be verified independantly ie Kodak as >they have offered. I also feel that the alledged cameraman X should be >extensively interviewed, if he is willing, and his documentation as seen >and accepted by Santilli, vetted. Requests to have the film verified seem to have been ignored; the "cameraman" will not apparently ever go public and, as such, there is no supporting documentation. >As an idea to stop the poor guy being hounded to death, literally, >considering his age, would the UFO research freternity accept a single >"Honest Broker" to do this on their behalf, there is no real use or mileage >in each researcher re-inventing the wheel. I'm certain this would be acceptable to anyone whose primary concern is resolving this affair. The question is, would it be acceptable to the "cameraman" and ,in the first instance, Santilli. Indications so far would suggest there is little, if any, chance of this being sanctioned. >The exact running time of the film(s) is a bit of a variable anyway and >totally dependant on the FPS it was taken at, lets say your reel of film >might take 7mins at 24 FPS, (10080 frames) but it could also take 9.3 mins >at 18 FPS, same piece of film. Lets face it WE don't know what frame rate >he used, maybe Santilli asked or guessed by observing the action, we just >don't know. >I think extended dialogs over the films running time is a bit pointless >without knowing all the facts, and we just don't have them. There was an obvious problem with this aspect, based on the information which has emanated second-hand so far. In a transcribed fax from Colin Andrews, concerning the Museum of London showing on 5 May, Colin reports that: The film started by saying: "The film you are about to see is taken from 16 mm original films on 3 minute-long canisters and was purchased from the person who filmed it. All copyright is with Merlin Communications Ltd." If there were allegedly 14 x 16mm 3 minute cannisters, that equates to 42 minutes worth of film. So, where did the current references to a 7 minute reels and a total footage of 91 minutes originate? Even if there were 14 x 7 minute reels, that would give us 98 minutes of film. Conversely, if the reels are only 3 minutes in length, we would then require 30.33 original 16mm reels to produce 91 minutes total footage. Obviously, this doesn't add up. The first reference I can locate to a 7 minute reel and a total footage of 91 minutes was contained in the press release dated 26 March, 1995, from the Press Association. In this, we hear that: "A top-secret film allegedly showing dead aliens will be screened for the first time anywhere in the world this summer - in Britain. It will also form the basis of a sensational BBC TV documentary due to be screened in August. The 91-minute film, to be shown to an international audience of UFO spotters at a two-day conference at Sheffield Hallam University... ...But the 16mm black and white silent film, shot on 14 reels, was copied by a former military... Philip Mantle of the British UFO Research Association said: "We have already had the film checked out by Kodak who confirm it is 50 years old, and we now plan to have it examined by film experts at the university." Mr Mantle, director of investigations for the UFO association, added: "I have seen one seven-minute reel."" What Phillip actually saw was 7 minutes of film, i.e., the "Tent Footage", not necessarily the contents of one original 7 minute, 16mm reel. On 25 May, 1995, Edoardo Russo reported on the San Marino symposium and noted: 1.1 - "the Tent footage": 7 minutes of black and white film showing an alleged alien body lying on a table within a tent badly lit by a lamp... 1.2 - The "Second" Autopsy On April 25th, Baiata flew from Rome to London in order to be shown a longer footage by Santilli... When he got there, he was told the laboratory had not yet finished its work, and asked to wait till the following day. He did so and on April 26th he was in Santilli's office where Chris Cary showed him a 12 minutes footage (sum of 4 reels of 3 minutes each) showing an autopsy of a naked alien within an operatory room. The body is very similar to the one in the "first autopsy footage" (see later on), except that it seemingly is more decomposed... Continued... --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 442 of 702 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 17 Jun 95 10:18:06 To : All 21 Jun 95 01:38:18 Subj : "Roswell Film": Update 2/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by James Easton * Originally to All * Originally dated 15 Jun 1995, 0:31 From: texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK (James Easton) Date: 14 Jun 95 16:48:04 GMT Message-ID: <00991E07.76A30F27.75@bonaly.hw.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo 1.3 - The "First" Autopsy This is the 18 minutes footage more widely known, since it was shown in the London Museum on May 5th... We were able to ask a lot of questions and tried to verify several rumours heard or read of (mostly on Internet exchanges). Here's a summary. 3.1 - Exact chronology: Santilly got the footage from Jack Barnett (real name, officially confirmed by Mantle in his speech) in June 1993, but according to Cary Santilli had known about it for at least a year (if true, this contradicts in part the known version). 3.3 - 91 minutes, not all good: Baiata was also told that some other short footages from the film have been viewed, but he was not shown them. Cary told that not all 91 minutes are as good as the three already shown parts. [End] Subsequently, on 30 May, Edoardo forwarded additional background details from his colleague Maurizio Verga and he had this to say: "I had a quite long talk with Mr. Chris Cary (associate of Mr. Ray Santilli) about their plans in exploiting the footage... ...According to Mr. Chris Cary not all the whole set of canisters has been viewed (!). Many reels are in poor conditions and after 50 years the film is very sensitive to light and handling, so they take a lot of care with it." Accepting Santilli's claims that the cannisters are 3 minutes in length, we can perhaps now account for some of them as follows: 1. The "First" Autopsy, as shown at the Museum of London. 18 minutes footage, consisting of 6 x original 3 minute, 16mm cannisters. 2. The "Second" Autopsy, shown on 26th April. 12 minutes footage, consisting of 4 x original 3 minute, 16mm cannisters. 3. The "Tent Footage", as reported by Phillip Mantle. This is allegedly "7 minutes of black and white film". Let's err on the cautious side and say: 6 minutes footage, consisting of 2 x original 3 minute, 16mm cannisters. All of which in total accounts for 12 of our alleged original 14 reels. But, don't forget that, "according to Mr. Chris Cary not all the whole set of canisters has been viewed (!). Many reels are in poor conditions..." We also have to account for Santilli's comments on 5 June, in which he confirmed that, "much footage was overexposed, ruined by age, or blank, so he did not know the full total which was usable." And we still have the crash site footage, the I-beam footage, the Truman is visible/Truman is not visible (delete as appropriate) footage and.... If we are to accept Mr Santilli's contention that the original cannisters were of 3 minutes length and that *much* of the original footage was useless and we know we can only logically have a maximum of 2 cannisters left, then logic would also imply that much of the contents therein must therefore be useless. Which doesn't leave an abundance of original 16mm film to account for the "vehicle recovery" and the "debris recovery" et al. However, this was based on the premise that all of the original cannisters were 3 minutes in length and that there were only 14 of them, neither of which had to my knowledge been confirmed by Ray Santilli. It now transpires, from Santilli's own words, that he allegedly has 21 or 22 (his own figures are inconsistent) cannisters of 3 minute reels and various lengths of "scrap" footage. He also confirms that he has in total some 30 minutes of good quality film and some 60 minutes of poor to very poor quality footage. We appear to have already seen 36 minutes or so of the film which has the best contrast and we presumably now await the "light blasted" footage. The lesson to be learned here is to disregard anything which has not emanated from Santilli himself and concentrate solely on his own version of events and stated intentions. The inaccurate and inconsistent claims made by those who are closely involved with Santilli are confusing the whole issue. >> Based on what the "cameraman" allegedly states, Santilli has now provided >> a timescale for the crash retrieval and autopsies and most importantly >> has named the General apparently in charge of the military operation. >Must have missed the General quote, been on holiday for a week, suffering >from USENET withdrawal , please repost. Well, if you're going to take holidays during a time of such crisis... You didn't miss anything. Mr Santilli has simply been more congenial of late and the "cameraman's" story is gradually unfolding. It's perhaps time to be patient and gather this data. There's no rush, neither Santilli nor the film are going anywhere at the moment. We may also need to see the alleged crash site footage before making additional judgments. >...I got the impression Santilli had possesion of the film for some greater >time, Mantle confirms being approached 2yrs back, maybe he finally stumped >up the cash for it 6 months ago but physically had possesion for longer? I am hopeful this can be shortly be clarified. >I'll reserve judgement on the Truman saga untill he pops up amongst the >wreckage. >alledgedly... >maybe... >if.. >.. carrying Dr Bronks autopsy report on the clip board from reel 3, >written in biro. ...and wearing a digital watch. Cheers, James. --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 773 of 798 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 20 Jun 95 23:39:16 To : All 23 Jun 95 01:51:18 Subj : Santilli-Roswell Film Coincidence? ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk * Originally to All * Originally dated 16 Jun 1995, 14:45 From: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk Date: 16 Jun 95 11:23:52 GMT Organization: Dept of Physics : Univ of Manchester : UK Message-ID: <3rrpk8$k63@yama.mcc.ac.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo After reading George Wingfield's latest report something rang a bell; ----extract from a posting of an article written by Thomas Carey----- On February 15, 1990, Kevin Randle received an unsolicited telephone call at his Cedar Rapids home from a gentleman professing to be one of the archaeologists in the party that witnessed the crashed UFO and dead alien bodies in New Mexico in 1947. (What is interesting here is that the individual telephoned Randle, who has an unlisted number known only to a few friends and associates; callers to the Unsolved Mysteries TV show who offer information pertaining to one of the featured stories are not given numbers to call or places to write, but their names and numbers are passed on to the show's participants.) The anonymous caller said that he had gotten Randle's number from a woman in Albuquerque who had also called the show earlier to offer her assistance in trying to find the archaeologists. For his part, Randle, who usually tape records (the annoying buzz notwithstanding) his interviews, did not record this one - much to my chagrin, as I could have tried to match the voice of the anonymous caller against the sixty or so archaeologists that I have talked to in the course of the investigation. In fact, I may have already interviewed the anonymous archaeologist without knowing it. Randle did, however, immediately commit to paper his recollection of the interview. To date, I have read and reread the transcript of that conversation at least a hundred times. The following is taken from Randle's transcript of his conversation with the anonymous archaeologist... .. According to the caller, he and some colleagues had been driving on back roads and across open country looking for signs of pre-Contact Indian occupation. ****(nm) At this point Randle tried to trip up the caller by asking him about the Plains of San Agustin, but the caller said that, no, they had been in the area near the Capitan Mountains, in Lincoln County in east-central New Mexico. ****(nm) When they came up over a rise, they saw about half a mile away in the arroyo below, something that looked like a fat aircraft fuselage without wings. He said that he saw no sign of a dome, portholes, hatch, or markings on it. He said that they then drove down toward it and stopped. There was another man already there (Barney Barnett? Cactus Jack? or another eyewitness that Randle and Schmitt have recently identified?) who was standing close to something lying on the ground. His attention at first was drawn to the craft because it was fatter and more rounded than an airplane, perhaps disc-shaped. He couldn't be certain, however, because it was so badly damaged. He stated that he saw three bodies, and he went on to describe the one closest to the man. It was small, but had a big head for its size and big eyes. Its head was turned to one side so that it was hard to see its facial features. He did say that there was a mouth but could not recall a nose. The creature was wearing a silvery-colored flight suit and had one of its arms bent at an odd angle as if it had been broken in the crash. Reminiscent of the Barney Barnett story, the caller then related that they had not been there very long when the military arrived, ordered the civilians away and to stand facing away from the craft and told them not to tell anyone what they had seen - that it was a matter of national security. An officer took down their names and where they were going to school and then threatened them with a loss of government-sponsored grants or funds if they talked. They were then escorted from the site and taken to a nearby road by armed soldiers and told to drive in an easterly direction. That was all that the caller knew or cared to divulge to Randle at the time. He said that he was a professional man and feared that he would be laughed at if he mentioned this story to his colleagues, but he wanted to share it with someone who would listen. He then said that he had told Randle all that he wanted to and hung up. ------end of extract and... -------extract of post by George Wingfield 12th June 1995 He had also been told that the crash happened in June [i.e. at least 3 weeks, apparently, before the accepted date--GW] just outside an Apache Indian reservation. General MacMullen [of SAC] sent them all [i.e. military personnel from Washington D.C.] down to the crash site to clean up the area. When that was finished it was found a small area had been missed [presumably the Brazel ranch] and the military had to go back in and clear up all over again. ****(nm) Now the only Apache reservation which fits the bill is the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation which is about 60 miles WSW of Roswell, just south of Ruidoso. The Brazel ranch is near Corona, 75 miles NW of Roswell, and 70 miles due north of Ruidoso. So cameraman "Jack Barnett" not only set the date back quite considerably but also moved the goalposts! ****(nm) --------end of extract The coincidence being that the Mescalero Reservation is 15 miles (aprox) south of Capitan, and less than 50 miles from Holloman AF base and only some 30 miles from the edge of Whites Sands. Odd isn't it? ? Would any clean up operation for this site be detailed from Roswell AAF over 70+ miles to the west. Nope ? Would anyone inform them about it. Nope ? Why did Blanchard's Press release get retracted and the "balloon go up" after Ramey alerted Washington. Mmm maybe even Ramey wasn't aware of events, why should he, he was further out of it than Blanchard. But he did get a visit by Ass Chief of Staff (SAC) Col Irvine on the 10th July 1947 "General MacMullen [ofSAC] sent them all [i.e. military personnel from Washington D.C.] down to the crash site to clean up the area. " Best Regards to All Neil.. Neil Morris. /1010110101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010010\ Dept of Physics. 1 1 University of Manchester. 0 0 Schuster Labs. 1 Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES 1 Brunswick St. 0 0 Manchester. 1 1 UK. \010101 011000010110110010110101101011011110101011010/ G8KOQ E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk or neil@es1.ph.man.ac.uk [ftp+gopher site] --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 718 of 789 From : Rebecca Schatte 1:106/235 03 Jul 95 23:07:26 To : All 06 Jul 95 02:08:08 Subj : Santilli Update ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Another bulletin from George Wingfield Santilli Film: Various Developments. GW Bulletin 6 (July 3) ------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Kodak's positive dating of the film as 1947 is something which Ray Santilli says he will place on the public record. When I see him in London tomorrow I hope to obtain a copy of Kodak's written confirmation so that I can report on their exact wording and determine precisely what they have established as regards dating it. IF the film is quite definitely of 1947 vintage, and was definitely exposed at that time, it is inconceivable that the footage was produced as a hoax in the sense in which we now understand that word. People at the time would hardly be of that frame of mind, since their outlook was very much conditioned by the recent World War, the beginnining of the Cold War, and respect for government authority. Even the idea that this footage was made by the US government in 1947 expressly to deceive the Soviets (for whatever reason) cannot be seriously entertained. If the Santilli film IS a hoax, it must be something that was made during the last 5 or 10 years. (2) After much urging of Ray Santilli by Philip Mantle, the former has at last persuaded "Jack Barnett" to place a call to Mantle. Although this could have been faked, Philip did not get that impression. He did not pump the man for information, hoping to establish some rapport, with a view to visiting him in the U.S. and interviewing him. He is still unsure whether the name is a pseudonym or not, but did not press the point. He said that the caller "sounded the part". (3) I sent out by E-mail a copy of the pathologist's report from Dr Milroy on July 2nd. This rules out, almost 100%, the suggestion that the corpse might be a dummy. If it is a human, not an alien, there are sufficient strange characteristics to make the availabilty of such a human corpse millions (even billions) to one against. (4) Congressman Steven Schiff and others apparently had a a viewing of the Santilli film in Washington D.C. on June 28th. It was recorded that Schiff had met with a Channel 4 TV team from London. They in fact helped screen the footage and they filmed all the procedings. Another congressman present was reported to be Dan Burton. (5) I have a copy of the item in the "Roswell Daily Record" of July 9th 1947 which gives rancher Mac Brazel's story, saying that he found the debris on June 14th. In Randle & Schmitt's book it is argued that his statement was just a cover story told by Brazel under duress to make it sound like balloon debris, and that the date on which he really found the debris was July 3rd. But why should a cover story involve changing the date of his find? "JB's" version places the actual crash in early June which is more consistent with Brazel's date of finding debris on June 14th. (I think JB says the crash was on June 2nd, which does not quite tie up, since Brazel said he visited the field, eight miles from the ranch house, four days earlier and no wreckage was there then). (6) The story about the Chinese group who visited Santilli's office on June 26th and claimed to have been shown similar footage to Santilli's film by a "division of the CIA" in 1993 needs some clarification. First of all, they were from the Republic of China (Taiwan) and not Communist China. With the Chinese were Colin Andrews and Reg Presley. It is now known that the leader of the group was Professor Hoang-Yung Chiang who is Chairman of the Taiwan UFO Science Association. (This association was "recognised by our government in 1993" and "set up with official backing". However this hardly makes it an official Chinese government delegation as I was lead to believe. Prof Chiang is a microbiologist and the Head of Biotechnology at the Cultural and Medical University in Taipei. With him were about four colleagues and the party included Hosen Takano from Japan. When Prof Chiang visited CIA Headquarters in McLean, Virginia, at the end of 1993, he says he was apparently shown entirely similar footage, showing identical alien corpses to those in Santilli's film. However it was incorrect to say that Chiang was given copies of this footage. Nor did the Chinese give the CIA any UFO footage, although they did show them some UFO photographs. If alien bodies were recovered from a flying saucer crash near Roswell in 1947 and the whole matter was "above top secret" for over 45 years, it is unbelievable that the CIA would just show this footage to a non-American citizen (from a country with whom the US has uncomfortable diplomatic relations currently) as if it were something unimportant and unclassified. What is going on here? To find out, I called my friendly CIA man in McLean, VA, today and asked what he knew about the Santilli film, Prof Chiang and his visit in 1993, the footage which some "division of the CIA" had screened at the time, and the Roswell incident in general. Predictably he said he had heard little about Santilli's film and hadn't seen it; he had never heard of Prof Chiang or his visit, and knew nothing about what really happened at Roswell. "I'm not the right person to ask". Absolutely nothing emerged from my call and my contact, who is reputedly extremely knowledgable about such matters, if he knew anything, was totally unwilling to admit it. (7) The "alien symbols" on the debris, released by Santilli do not look very convincing to me. Some closely resemble more earthbound characters, which are to be found in the Greek alphabet, and in Chinese and early Phoenician. I would have said they were very much more like variations on a few familiar letters and symbols than any completely different, "otherworld" symbols that one might expect alien writing to consist of. But then, maybe that's just my prejudice! [There will be no further bulletins on the Santilli film until I return from Seattle, Vancouver and Oregon at the end of July] George Wingfield --- þ WinQwk 2.0b#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy --- þ WinQwk 2.0b#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy --- FLAME v1.1 * Origin: Your Source For eSoft/LANtastic/Tekram AND Low Prices! (1:106/235) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 994 of 1000 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 17 Jul 95 17:34:00 To : All 19 Jul 95 01:46:12 Subj : Santilli Film - The Truth (was A. Victorian: Santilli Film Definite ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by KRandle993 * Originally to All * Originally dated 16 Jul 1995, 14:23 From: krandle993@aol.com (KRandle993) Date: 16 Jul 95 04:50:15 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Message-ID: <3ua5q7$pin@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research Yes, I have read the Air Force report and I find it filled with misinformation. Yes, I mean misinformation. Evidence? In the course of his interview with Colonel Richard Weaver, author of the Air Force report, Sheridan Cavitt said that he had not been sworn to secrecy. From that I suppose we are to extrapolate that no one was sworn to secrecy. Major (later Colonel) Edwin Easley, Provost Marshal of the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell in 1947, when asked about the Roswell UFO crash said, "I've heard about it...I can't talk about it...I've been sworn to secrecy." Weaver quoted from an affidavit from Sallye Tadolini, a Brazel neighbor in 1947. Weaver writes of her affidavit, "What Bill [Brazel] showed us was a piece of what I still think of fabric. It was something like aluminum foil, something like satin, something like well-tanned leather in its toughness, yet not precisely like any one of those materials...It was about the thickness of very fine kidskin glove leather and a dull metallic grayish silver, one side slightly darker than the other. I do not remember it having any design or embossing on it..." Sounds like it could be part of the remains of a New York University balloon from Project Mogul doesn't it? Then why not publish the next paragraph in Tadolini's affidavit? "Bill passed it around, and we all felt of it. I did a lot of sewing, so the feel made a great impression on me. It felt like no fabric I have ever touched before or since. It was very silky or satiny, with the same texture on both sides. Yet when I crumpled it in my hands, the feel was like that you notice when you crumble a leather glove in your hand. When it was released, it sprang back into its original shape, quickly flattening out with no wrinkles..." That certainly changes the context doesn't it? What material were we using in 1947 manufacture of balloons that have the properties mentioned in the second paragraph of Tadolini's affidavit? The point is the Air Force thought enough of her statements to include it in their report, but not to include all of it. Clearly Tadolini is describing something in the second paragraph that does not relate to the balloon offered by the Air Force. I can provide many other examples of where the Air Force report was less than honest in what it reported. Evidence from the affidavits of those involved and how they conflict with what the Air Force would have us believe. KRANDLE --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 995 of 1000 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 17 Jul 95 17:34:02 To : All 19 Jul 95 01:46:14 Subj : Santilli Film - The Truth (was A. Victorian: Santilli Film Definite ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by Tony * Originally to All * Originally dated 16 Jul 1995, 14:23 From: npacheco@cais.com (Tony) Date: 16 Jul 95 14:06:16 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 Message-ID: <3ub6co$ifu@news.cais.com> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research In article <3ua5q7$pin@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, krandle993@aol.com (KRandle993) says: >Yes, I have read the Air Force report and I find it filled with >misinformation. Yes, I mean misinformation. Mr. Randle: I am glad that you used the word misinformation, because at least we can discuss such a topic on an objective basis. Although there is undoubtdedly some degree of misinformation in this report (it is after all a historical incident that happened 50 years ago), I find its degree of misinformation to be much lower than yours. This is not to disparage your investigative skills, for you did not have at your disposal the classified sources which the Air Force report was able to access in developing their report. I must say, however, that I don't understand why you failed to interview the Mogul developers at New York University. Some of us were aware of this project long before it was officially released, and I can only assume that you must have become aware of it in the course of your investigations. Is there a reason why you did not follow that trail? >Evidence? In the course of his interview with Colonel Richard Weaver, >author of the Air Force report, Sheridan Cavitt said that he had not been >sworn to secrecy. From that I suppose we are to extrapolate that no one >was sworn to secrecy. Major (later Colonel) Edwin Easley, Provost Marshal >of the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell in 1947, when asked about the Roswell >UFO crash said, "I've heard about it...I can't talk about it...I've been >sworn to secrecy." Well, Mr. Randle, since you choose to bring up Sheridan Cavitt as an example, perhaps you should have added Cavitt's statement, to wit: "...he (Cavitt) had been contacted on numerous occasions by UFO researchers and had willingly talked with many of them; however, he felt that he had oftentimes been misrepresented or had his comments taken out of context so that their true meaning was changed. He stated unequivocally, however, that the material he recovered consisted of a reflective sort of material like aluminum foil, and some thin, bamboo-like sticks. He thought at the time, and continues to think so today, that what he found was a weather balloon and has told other private researchers that..." I suggest that before you make accusations of USAF misinformation, you tell the public why Cavitt would have made such a statement, which is signed under oath and available in the project archives. About his not having been sworn to secrecy, this must be rather clear, since he spoke with many UFO researchers openly. If you want to extrapolate from this to your statement that "no one was sworn to secrecy," you may make this rather presumptous leap, but only if you want to build a straw man. The fact is that many *were* sworn to secrecy, but not because of any extraterrestrial crashed saucer. They were sworn to secrecy because Mogul was a TS project. You fail to mention that to ensure against charges of further "cover-up" the Secretary of the Air Force provided authorization to allow witnesses to discuss classified information and free them from any prior restriction if such existed. This is unprecedented in such an investigation, and allowed for free and open discussion in the interviews. >Weaver quoted from an affidavit from Sallye Tadolini, a Brazel neighbor in >1947. Weaver writes of her affidavit, "What Bill [Brazel] showed us was a >piece of what I still think of fabric. It was something like aluminum >foil, something like satin, something like well-tanned leather in its >toughness, yet not precisely like any one of those materials...It was >about the thickness of very fine kidskin glove leather and a dull metallic >grayish silver, one side slightly darker than the other. I do not remember >it having any design or embossing on it..." >Sounds like it could be part of the remains of a New York University >balloon from Project Mogul doesn't it? Yes, it definitly does... >Then why not publish the next >paragraph in Tadolini's affidavit? > >"Bill passed it around, and we all felt of it. I did a lot of sewing, so >the feel made a great impression on me. It felt like no fabric I have ever >touched before or since. It was very silky or satiny, with the same >texture on both sides. Yet when I crumpled it in my hands, the feel was >like that you notice when you crumble a leather glove in your hand. When >it was released, it sprang back into its original shape, quickly >flattening out with no wrinkles..." By the way, when Tadolini states that "I did a lot of sewing..." let us remember that she was a nine year old girl at the time, not exactly a world class expert on sewing materials. >That certainly changes the context doesn't it? What material were we using >in 1947 manufacture of balloons that have the properties mentioned in the >second paragraph of Tadolini's affidavit? What material? Balsa wood beams coated with Elmer's glue for reinforcement, and covered with acetate or cloth reinforcing tape and nylon twine, and finished with an aluminum coating. Make one, Mr. Randle. You will note the surprising effect that when you crumple a small piece of material composed of a matrix of acetate maerial, Elemer;s glue, and thin aluminum, it will spring back into its original shape. It does in fact have a few wrinkles, but not something that would be noted by a nine year old girl who did not have the slighest idea that this would become "proof" of a flying saucer 50 years later. >The point is the Air Force >thought enough of her statements to include it in their report, but not to >include all of it. Clearly Tadolini is describing something in the second >paragraph that does not relate to the balloon offered by the Air Force. Your imagination is certainly vivid... but if I were you I probably would not harp on abbreviated quotes, as per the example cited above. >I can provide many other examples of where the Air Force report was less >than honest in what it reported. Evidence from the affidavits of those >involved and how they conflict with what the Air Force would have us >believe. > >KRANDLE I certainly hope that any further examples are more substantial than the ones you cited here. Let me finish by again commending you on good investigative work under difficult circumstances. The problem I have with your research is not that it was sloppy, but that it made many unwarranted extrapolations and led the less informed into creating something out of Roswell that was never there. I happen to think there is a "real" UFO phenomenon, but cases like Roswell detract from the true data and cause conventional scientists to distance themselves even further from the field. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 996 of 1000 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 17 Jul 95 17:34:02 To : All 19 Jul 95 01:46:14 Subj : Santilli Film - The Truth (was A. Victorian: Santilli Film Definite ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by KRandle993 * Originally to All * Originally dated 16 Jul 1995, 23:59 From: krandle993@aol.com (KRandle993) Date: 16 Jul 95 15:20:50 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Message-ID: <3ubaoi$269@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research Sheridan Cavitt told me on my first visit that he was not assigned to the base at Roswell in July 1947. On my second visit, he told me had been assigned to the base at Roswell but had not been physically present during early July 1947. He also said that he had never participated in the recovery of a balloon, V-2 rocket, or debris of an experiemental aircraft. On my third visit, after he had spoken to Richard Weaver, he told me again that he had involved in the retrieval of a balloon or anything else. The question that Weaver didn't ask, after Cavitt told him that he HAD been involved in the recovery of a balloon, was why he didn't bother to inform either Major Jesse Marcel, the 509th Intelligence Officer, or Colonel William Blanchard, the CO, of this rather vital piece of information. The Air Force investigators made it clear that they were aware of the work that I have done which includes many names of former military officers. Vital to their investigation are the words of Brigadier General Arthur Exon. Yet the Air Force investigators didn't bother to interview him. The Air Force ignored the words of Major Edwin Easley, 509th Provost Marshal. Although they couldn't interview him because he had died, I certainly would have provided them with a transcript of the interview as well as a copy of the tape. I mentioned Tadolini only because the Air Force thought enough of her statement to include a single paragraph in their report. I believe the second paragraph is equally interested, yet was ignored by the Air Force. I have heard about Project Mogul's TS status but have begun to question that. I have received, from the National Archives, a number of documents, written in 1946 and 1947, that suggest Project Mogul was not highly classified. These documents are all "Confidential" a fairly low classification. I have visited Professor Moore, a Mogul engineer in his home twice. As he carried one of the rawin targets through his living room to show it to me, he bumped it on a table, tearing it. In other words, these targets were fragile. I interviewed him on my radio show. I have spoken to other Mogul participants. I simply don't find the balloon explanation persuasive. A longer response will appear in OMNI. I tried to keep my response short, so only included a couple of examples to suggest the situation wasn't all black and white. KRandle --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 1090 of 1098 From : Jody Weber 1:395/10 18 Jul 95 22:05:10 To : All 20 Jul 95 01:40:14 Subj : Alleged Alien Autopsi 1/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The following is from an anonymous source so its credibility may be somewhat dubious. However, I find it interesting and therefore feel that it may be interesting to others. Therefore..... SUBJECT: AUTOPSY REPORT # 1 DATE: 7/14/47 COPY ONE OF THREE INITIAL FINDINGS UPON EXAMINATION AND AUTOPSY OF THE BODY OF AN APPARENT ALIEN CREATURE 1. External Appearance This body was observed to be in a state of significant deterioration. It had been preserved with formaldehyde solution but not otherwise dissected. The cadaver was 44 inches long with a weight of 27 pounds when the preservative solution had been drained. The external appearance of this cadaver was of a human embryo with an enlarged cranium. Hands and feet were normal. Fingers and toenails had been had been pared. Fingerprints of a swirl-left pattern were observed and taken. All ten fingers and toes were apparent. There was some vestigial webbing between first and second fingers and toes. Sexual organs appeared to be those of a male. They were in an embryonic state and revealed no evidence of pubescence. Ears were partially formed, and showed some evidence of surgical intervention. Folds of skin had been drawn out from the surface of the scalp in an apparent attempt to create the impression of a more fully developed ear than was actually present. Lips were vestigial and the mouth contained no erupted teeth. The nose was also in an incomplete state of growth and had also received surgical intervention, resulting in what appeared to be a very thin a delicate organ. Eyes were distinguished by extensive surgical intervention. They were almond-shaped and by far the most prominent facial feature. The eyeballs were not matured and appeared to have been sutured with artificial lenses of an unknown type. Because of their extremely unusual condition, dissection of these eyes was not attempted. 2. Dissection An incision was made from the thorax to the scrotum. The skin was first extended from the fascia and the fascia was observed to be consistent with the appearance of an immature human male. The fascia were then dissected and the internal organs were observed. The position of the heart was observed to be vertical, as would be consistent with a very early fetus, prior to the fourth month. The organ was prominent and was weighed to be 1/70th of the mass of the body. When the organ was dissected it was found that there was direct communication between the two auricles through the formen ovale. The Eustachia valve was observed to be large. A ductus arteriosus was observed to communicate between the pulmonary artery and the descending aorta. This ductus opened into the descending aorta just below the origin of the left subclavian artery. Alterations in the structure of the circulatory system suggested that this body had been surgically corrected to detach it from placental dependence in an artificial manner. The stomach was opened and found to be free of any food substances. The cardiac orifice was apparently atrophied, although the deterioration of the corpus made this difficult to determine. It is possible that this individual did not eat. The liver was prominent and it was clear that the blood of the umbilical vein would traverse it before entering the inferior cava. The umbilical vein itself had been severed of its placental crown and returned to the circulatory system by a means that was beyond the scope of this dissection to establish. The lungs were not developed. There were lateral pouches on either side of the central diverticulum, open through into the pharynx. The larynx was somewhat cartilaginous and the trachea was developed. It is probable that this individual did not breathe any more than he ate. The means of sustaining life is unknown, if he was ever alive in any practical sense. The cranium was dissected and it was found that the skull was formed of exceptionally thin and pliant cartilaginous material, appearing to be bone precursor that had been affected in some manner, making it more than usually thin and delicate. The brain itself was extensively and surprisingly formed. There was an unknown cortex superimposed on the forebrain and extending as far back at the fissure of Ralando. Because of this extraordinary formation it was decided not to pursue dissection of the brain at this time. The organ was extracted and placed (Continued to next message) --- * OLX 1.53 * There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action --- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e' * Origin: Mutual UFO Network - (MUFON) HQ BBS (512)556-2524 (1:395/10) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 1091 of 1098 From : Jody Weber 1:395/10 18 Jul 95 22:05:10 To : All 20 Jul 95 01:40:14 Subj : Alleged Alien Autopsi 2/2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ (Continued from previous message) in fluid preservation pending further study. Overall, this corpus presented the appearance of a human embryo of three to four months duration that had been the subject of considerable alteration and modification, some of it obviously surgical. Other modifications, such as that of the brain, were harder to understand. In addition to the alterations, there was the matter of the size of the body and the relatively mature condition of the epidermis and nails. It would appear that this fetus was separated from its mother and brought to a semi-functional state by artificial means. 3. Conclusion This is a human fetus that has been subjected to forced maturation without normal gestation. Its degree of functionality while living if it ever was alive is unknown. TOP SECRET MAJIC SUBJECT: AUTOPSY REPORT # 2 DATE: 7/14/47 COPY ONE OF THREE INITIAL FINDINGS UPON EXAMINATION AND AUTOPSY OF THE BODY OF AN APPARENT ALIEN CREATURE 1. External Appearance This body was observed to be in a state of profound deterioration. It had not been preserved but was delivered in a container of rubberized canvas, to which some of the tissue had adhered. The cadaver was 36 inches long with a weight of 8 pounds. The external appearance of this cadaver was not of a human type. The skin appeared smooth and a dark bluish-gray in color. There was no clothing on the body. There were no genitals and no was of determining sex, if any. The nose consisted of two slits, the mouth was a small opening that did not appear to be supported by an articulated jaw, and there were holes in the position of ears. The cranium was round and large in proportion to the body and the eyes were almond-shaped. The eyes were closed and could not be opened without damaging structures, due to condition of decaying tissue. Arms and wrists were very thin. The hands displayed a three-digit arrangement without thumb. The arms extended to approximately three inches above the knee. The three fingers extended directly from the wrist, with no palm. 2. Dissection The body was opened from crotch to chin. A green liquid emerged from the incision. The skin was not backed by fascia, and the bone structure appeared to be a cartilaginous substance of light green-blue color. Internal organs were observed but their function was unclear. The thoracic and peritoneal cavities communicated and there appeared to be no respiratory system and no stomach. The esophagus was vestigial and dissipated before reaching another organ. There appeared to be two multi-chambered hearts and it was surmised that body fluid could be pumped rapidly. There was an extensive circulatory system that involved three different types of vein. Some material was extracted from one of these systems and suggested possible waste, leading to the notion that waste matter must have been exuded through the skin. The fluid removed from the body was analyzed under the microscope and found to be a vegetable substance, chlorophyll-based. It is possible that photosynthesis was the means of obtaining energy. The cranium was dissected and it was observed that a ridge of cartilage separate the brain into two completely isolated components. The brain was severely deteriorated, but appeared to be extensively fissured and divided into numerous lobes. Because of the deterioration, the degree of bilateralism of the two halves could not be determined with any accuracy. This cadaver exuded an unusually foul odor. 3. Conclusion This is not a cadaver of a kind previously observed by or known to this pathologist. It appears to be a form of creature utilizing elements of both the animal and vegetable. --- * OLX 1.53 * There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action --- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e' * Origin: Mutual UFO Network - (MUFON) HQ BBS (512)556-2524 (1:395/10) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 675 of 747 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 19 Jul 95 20:51:04 To : All 21 Jul 95 01:46:10 Subj : Roswell Crash Materials Eyewitness Testimony (1/7) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by Drudiak * Originally to All * Originally dated 17 Jul 1995, 20:58 From: drudiak@aol.com (DRudiak) Date: 17 Jul 95 01:31:29 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Message-ID: <3ucehh$d4m@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo DESCRIPTIONS OF ROSWELL CRASH DEBRIS BY CIVILIAN AND MILITARY WITNESSES Compiled by David Rudiak The eyewitness descriptions are derived from the following sources using the following abbreviations: F&B: Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner, "Crash at Corona", 1991 B&M: Charles Berlitz and William Moore, "The Roswell Incident," 1980. R&S1: Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt, "UFO Crash at Roswell" R&S2: Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt, "The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell," 1994 U.M.: TV Program "Unsolved Mysteries," Sept. 1989 VIDEO1: "UFOs, A Need to Know," 1991. VIDEO2: "UFO Secret: The Roswell Crash," 1994. FUFOR: "The Roswell Events", ed. Fred Whiting, sponsored by Fund for UFO Research, 1991; quoted in the 1994 Air Force Report on Roswell. USAF: United States Air Force Report on Roswell, Sept. 1994. KPFA: KPFA radio broadcast, Berkeley, CA, 11/15/94, Ralph Steiner, producer. SR#6: Leonard Stringfield's UFO Crash/Retrievals Status Report VI, 1991. SKEP July/August 1995 "Skeptical Inquirer" To assist in comparing various eyewitness descriptions, the crash materials have been divided into several broad categories: 1. Wood-like/plastic-like sticks or I-beams with "hieroglyphic" writing. 2. Tough, flexible, foil-like material with "memory" properties. 3. Descriptions of other metal-like substances, particularly unbendable metal. 4. Tape-like material with "hieroglyphic" writing or "flower patterns" 5. Parchment or paper-like material, with "hieroglyphics" 6. Threadlike or wire-like material. 7. Size of the debris field, gouges in the ground, and quantities of debris. 8. Misc: Gen. George Schulgen's memo of 10/28/47 describing possible flying saucer materials and construction. Dr. Robert Sarbacher's comments on lightweight saucer crash materials and aliens; Wilbert B. Smith's comments on handling and analyzing non-Roswell flying saucer debris. Jacques Vallee's comments on Roswell. 1. WOOD-LIKE TAN STICKS OR I-BEAMS WITH "HIEROGLYPHICS" LORETTA PROCTOR (The Proctors were neighbors of Mac Brazel, the rancher who found the crash debris) (F&B, interviewed July, 1990) "The piece he brought looked like a kind of tan, light brown plastic. It was very lightweight, like balsa wood. It wasn't a large piece, maybe about four inches long, maybe just a little larger than a pencil. We cut on it with a knife and would hold a match on it, and it wouldn't burn. We knew it wasn't wood. It was smooth like plastic, it didn't have a real sharp corners, kind of like a dowel stick. Kind of dark tan. It didn't have any grain, just smooth. I hadn't seen anything like it." (VIDEO1) "In 1947, I think it was the first of July, he came over with something that looked like wood that he had found over on the ranch and wanted us to take a look. ...The piece he brought up was about the size of a lead pencil and about 4 or 5 inches long. It was kind of a tan color, kind of what we would say plastic now, but we didn't have plastic then. You couldn't cut it, or burn it, or whittle it -- just very, very hard. It was very light, it seemed to be." (Pflock, FUFOR, affidavit 5/5/91): "In July 1947, my neighbor William W. "Mac" Brazel came to my ranch and showed my husband and me a piece of material he said came from a large pile of debris on the property he managed. The piece he brought was brown in color, similar to plastic. He and my husband tried to cut and burn the object, but they weren't successful. It was extremely light in weight. I had never seen anything like it before." (R&S1, 1989): " ...he did bring a little sliver of a wood looking stuff up, but you couldn't burn it or you couldn't cut it or anything. I guess it was just a sliver of it, about the size of a pencil and about three to four inches long. I would say it was kind of brownish tan but you know that's been quite a long time. It looked like plastic, of course there wasn't any plastic then, but that was kind of what it looked like. [Q: When he brought it up, did you try to cut it?] A: No, we didn't. He did..." WILLIAM BRAZEL JR. (Mac Brazel's adult son in 1947; returned to ranch while father was incarcerated by military and found some scraps of debris left behind after military cleanup): (F&B) "[There were also] some wooden-like particles like balsa wood in weight, but a bit darker in color and much harder.... It was pliable but wouldn't break. Weighed nothing, but you couldn't scratch it with your fingernail. All I had was a few small bits. [There was no writing or markings on the pieces I had] but Dad did say one time that there were what he called "figures on some of the pieces he found. He often referred to the petroglyphs the ancient Indians drew on the rocks around here as "figures," too, and I think that's what he meant to compare them with." "Some of it was like balsa wood: real light and kind of neutral color, more of a tan. To the best of my memory, there wasn't any grain in it. Couldn't break it-- it'd flex a little. I couldn't whittle it with my pocket knife." [Quoting his father, Mac Brazel, some time after 1947] "[There was] some wood, and on some of that wood there was Japanese or Chinese figures." (B&M) "There were several different types of stuff. ...it sure was light in weight. It weighed almost nothing. There was some wooden-like particles I picked up. These were like balsa wood in weight, but a bit darker in color and much harder. You know the thing about wood is that the harder it gets, the heavier it is. Mahogany, for example is quite heavy. This stuff, on the other hand, weighed nothing, yet you couldn't scratch it with your fingernail like ordinary balsa, and you couldn't break it either. It was pliable, but wouldn't break. Of course, all I had was a few splinters. It never occurred to me to try to burn it so I don't know if it would burn or not." [Quoting his father] "Dad did say one time that there were what he called 'figures' on some of the pieces he found. He often referred to the petroglyphs the ancient Indians drew on rocks around here as "figures" too, and I think that's what he meant to compare them with." (R&S1) "There were some pieces of wood ... like balsa wood. Real light, kind of a neutral color, kind of a tan. And I couldn't break it. [It would} flex a little. The longest piece I found, about six inches would flex a little. I couldn't break it and I couldn't whittle it with my pocketknife. ...I did try to whittle on that piece of wood. I didn't even get a little sliver off it." [Quoting his father] "'Well, there was this big bunch of stuff. There was some tin foil and some wood and on some of the wood it had Japanese or Chinese figures.' Evidently it was some sort of inscription on part of this wood. Now I found a little piece of it but there was no writing on it." MAJOR JESSE MARCEL (Chief intelligence officer and air crash investigator at Roswell AFB; he and Sheridan Cavitt were first military people at the Brazel debris field; Marcel is a key witness in Roswell case): (F&B) "A lot of it had a lot of little members [I-beams] with symbols that we had to call them hieroglyphics because I could not interpret them, they could not be read, they were just symbols, something that meant something and they were not all the same. The members that this was painted on -- by the way, those symbols were pink and purple, lavender was actually what it was. And so these little members could not be broken, could not be burned. I even tried to burn that. It would not burn." (B&M) "There was all kinds of stuff -- Small beams about three-eighths or a half inch square with some sort of hieroglyphics on them that nobody could decipher. These looked something like balsa wood, and were of about the same weight, except that they were not wood at all. They were very hard, although flexible, and would not burn." (R&S2) [He also described I-beam-like structures. Though unbendable or breakable, they did not look metallic. According to Marcel] They were, as I recall, perhaps three-eighths of an inch by one quarter of an inch thick, and [came] in just about all sizes, none of them very long. [The biggest was] I would say, about three or four feet long [and] weightless. You couldn't even tell you had it in your hands. [He also noticed "indecipherable" two-color markings along the length of some of the I-beams] I've never seen anything like that myself ... I don't know if they were ever deciphered or not ... Along the length of some of those [I-beam-like members], they had little markings. Two-color markings ... like Chinese writing. Nothing you could make any sense out of. (Pflock, Bob Pratt interview, 12/8/79) [There were] "little members, small members, solid members that could not bend or break, but it didn't look like metal. It looked more like wood. They varied in size. They were, as I can recall, perhaps three-eights of an inch by one-quarter of an inch thick, and just about all sizes. None of them were very long. [The longest was] I would say about three feet long. [It was] weightless. You couldn't even tell you had it in you hands--just like you handle balsa wood. ... It was a solid member, rectangular members, just like you get a square stick. Varied lengths, and along the length of some of those they had little markings, two-color markings as I recall--like Chinese writing to me. Nothing you could make any sense out of. ... All the solid members were that way [long and slender]. JESSE MARCEL JR (examined debris when his father awoke family at 2 a.m.) (F&B) "Many of the remnants, including I-beam pieces that were present, had strange hieroglyphic typewriting symbols across the inner surfaces, pink and purple, except that I don't think there were any animal figures present as there are in true Egyptian hieroglyphics." (B&M, interview April 1979) "Imprinted along the edge of some of the beam remnants there were hieroglyphic-type characters. I recently questioned my father about this, and he recalled seeing this characters also, and even described them as being a pink or purplish-pink color. Egyptian hieroglyphics would be a close visual description of the characters seen, except I don't think there were any animal figures present as there are in true Egyptian hieroglyphics." (U.M.): "This writing [on a short piece of I-beam] could be described as like hieroglyphics, Egyptian-type hieroglyphics, but not really. The symbols that were on the I-beams were more of a geometric-type configuration in various designs. It had a violet-purple type color and was actually an embossed part of the metal itself." (Pflock) "There was a series of geometric patterns embossed on the inner surface of a fragment shaped like an "I" beam strut. There were not recognizable animal figures such as seen in Egyptian hieroglyphics but the symbols resembled hieroglyphic type characters. . . . The color of the symbols was of a violet or purplish metallic hue. . . . I showed the above drawing to my mother who was also present and she concurs with the above description." [The drawing is of an I-beam about 18" long with two fractured ends with about 20 symbols along the inner surface, about 1/2" high.] (Plock, FUFOR, USAF, affidavit May 6, 1991) "...there were fragments of what appeared to be I-beams. On the inner surface of the I-beam, there appeared to be a type of writing. This writing was a purple-violet hue, and it had an embossed appearance. The figures were composed of curved geometric shapes. It had no resemblance to Russian, Japanese or any other foreign language. It resembled hieroglyphics, but it had no animal-like characters." (R&S2) [Jesse, Jr., described the writing as ] different geometric shapes, leaves, and circles. [...the symbols were shiny purple and they were small, less than a fingernail wide. There were many separate figures.] (KPFA) "...There were structural members that I felt looked like I-beams. I guess the major difference there was that on the inner surface of one of these I-beams there looked like there was some writing of some kind. The writing was a purplish-violet hue and was entirely within the member itself." [Although some of the material he handled could possibly be interpreted as fragments of balloon wreckage, Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr. says there are enough differences to raise questions about the Air Force explanation.] "Well, I talked to Lt. Kantor [sp?] and I told him that they did make a good case for this being parts of a weather, [that is] Mogul device, because there are some basic similarities there. Then again, there are some things that are totally different too. So I can't reconcile what I saw with what a Mogul device would have looked like. As they said, the beams were balsa wood. Well, I know what balsa wood looks like 'cause when I was a kid, I made stick models all the time. And that sure didn't look like balsa wood, unless it was sprayed with aluminum paint, or something like that, to make it look like metal. And you know it was extremely light. I do recall one symbol for sure that was on the beam and that was like a truncated pyramid with a ball on top of it. It was the only symbol I can know for sure was on this beam. The rest of it, you know, was just various geometric designs." --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 680 of 693 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 24 Jul 95 19:38:00 To : All 26 Jul 95 01:43:16 Subj : Roswell Film and Congressman Schiff ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by Gilgamesh * Originally to All * Originally dated 23 Jul 1995, 20:38 From: gilgash@primenet.com (Gilgamesh) Date: 23 Jul 95 10:58:30 GMT Organization: Ovni Chapterhouse Message-ID: <3utlmg$qa0@nnrp2.primenet.com> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors, alt.ufo.reports Schiff makes a stand ABC Affiliate in AZ Wed. July 19th 1995 (the folowing text as it was heard on the news) Does the Air Force have film of an autopsy performed on an ALien? A New Mexico Congressman thinks so. Congressamn Steve Schiff (Waco hearings) is calling for an investigation of a 1947 film which supposedly shows doctors disecting a figure with 12 fingers and toes, swollen legs, and a large head with big eyes covered by black membranes. The Air Force which it says won't release the film, says it's an experiment gone wrong. I contacted the news station and they could verify no additional info. I contacted AP, but they don't really deal with the public, or at least with me. Anyone out there, please try to verify this and clear up the discrepancies. Like, what experiment is this? Why did it go worng? The air force admits to the film. Admits experiment. Admits hidding evidence by not releasing the film. I hope somebody has some luck with who in the Air Force said this, and hoopefully someone will find the name of this experiment. If they won't release the film, will they release documents as to what this experiment is or was? Needless to say, but here is proof of the intrest the Govt has always had in UFOs and alien beings. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 710 of 820 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 27 Jul 95 22:20:22 To : All 31 Jul 95 01:47:12 Subj : Roswell ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by Marc Michalik * Originally to All * Originally dated 26 Jul 1995, 8:00 BZ>That wasn't the GAO report, though. The GAO report is apparently being BZ>released to Schiff Friday and he is electing to wait one month before BZ>divulging the contents. What you saw was some stupid PR garbage. I found this, along with other recent evetns, to be more than a little interesting. First, there was the scientist who comes out of the blue claiming that the Roswell Event was one of his balloons in an AP story. No mention of the autopsy footage, my local paper was not running a story that this was a part of, and has yet to mention the Roswell film at all. This is such an obvious attempt at "damage control" that it almost appears that they want to be exposed. Then, the next day, this. The GAO finally announces it's release of thier report and when will it come? 7/28/95 and Schiff has the option of holding it for one month before pulic disclosure. What do you know! That puts it in the pulic domain on 8/28/95. The exact day the Roswell film will be shown to the world. What a coincidence! Up until now, I have had no opinion either way. But now, after keeping up with this thing since it started, I have an opinion. I don't see any way possible that it is a hoax created solely by Santilli. The US government appears to be involed with this in some way. I see three possabilities that stand above the rest. 1) The film shows the autopsies of humans who were sujected to "Death Camp" like experiments or some equally unacceptale experiment. 2) The recent resurgance of interest in UFOs (much due to the FOX network) has caused those responsile for the cover-up to come to the conclusion that they need to (once again) influence public opinion away from the suject. In other words, the film is a very well made, and very easily debunked, disinformation campaign. If this is the case, I believe this plan will backfire in a big way. 3) It's the real thing and we can all look forward to seeing Phil Klass and Dean Adams (if they are, in fact, seperate people) clutch thier chests and drop dead. "The truth WAS out there, and our grandparents missed it" --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 711 of 820 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 27 Jul 95 22:23:24 To : All 31 Jul 95 01:47:12 Subj : Bell/Santilly .wav by anon FTP ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by John Jordan * Originally to All * Originally dated 26 Jul 1995, 19:21 From: wecare@teleport.com (John Jordan) Date: 25 Jul 95 20:39:19 GMT Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Message-ID: <3v3kpn$m8p@kelly.teleport.com> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo A few days ago I offered to post a 1/2hr long (6.7MB) .wav file of an interview between Art Bell and Ray Santilly where they discussed the "Roswell film." This interview has many interesting tid-bits of information and is a "must-listen" for those who are more than casually interested in the film. The audio of the interview is pretty good considering that it was first tape recorded off a cheesy AM radio, digitized in 4 bit on an Amiga computer and then converted to .wav from .iff with a program called "SOX". I was finally able to test the .wav file on a PC using the "DAT" tape drive thingy in a program called "audiostation," and it sounded just fine. Sentil kindly agreed to offer this file to all of you by anon FTP. THANK YOU Sentil! That was very kind! :) To get that file simply FTP to: minpro.mng.psu.edu and look in the /incoming DIR for autopsy2.wav Again, it is 6.7mb and about a 1/2 hour long. I'd appreciate any comments you might have.. Take Care and keep looking up! John -- I'm on the PINE and feeling FINE! Pycnogenol(r) wecare@teleport.com --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 712 of 820 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 27 Jul 95 22:25:24 To : All 31 Jul 95 01:47:12 Subj : Roswell alien autopsy film ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by modonnell@meto.govt.uk * Originally to All * Originally dated 26 Jul 1995, 22:51 From: modonnell@meto.govt.uk Date: 26 Jul 95 11:44:34 GMT Message-ID: <01HTBPE37YC20014J2@meadow.meto.govt.uk> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo There was a radio phone-in programme yesterday (Talk Radio UK) about the alleged Roswell alien autopsy film. Right at the end, an American woman (currently in Britain) called to say that she had been listening to a description of the film, and that it sounded exactly like one she had been shown as a child in 1966. She said a relative (who worked for ther government) had shown the film to her and her family, and had told her to take it very seriously. She was told that the film was real, and that very few people had seen it. She said the reason the person gave for showing them the film was that "they didn't want us to go through life missing out". There's a documentary called "Secret History: The Roswell Incident" which will be shown on Channel 4 (UK) on August 28th. It will include parts of the film. I think the documentary will also be broadcast in the USA on the same day. -Matt --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 715 of 820 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 27 Jul 95 22:29:28 To : All 31 Jul 95 01:47:12 Subj : "Guardian" on Roswell 1/2 -Article ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by John Stepkowski * Originally to All * Originally dated 26 Jul 1995, 22:51 From: legion@WERPLE.MIRA.NET.AU (John Stepkowski) Date: 26 Jul 95 07:35:31 GMT Message-ID: <199507260735.RAA11438@werple.mira.net.au> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo >From _The Guardian_, July 25, 1995 - 1/2 ''SPACE ODDITY'' Almost 50 years ago something crashed at the Roswell air force base in New Mexico. What was it? UFO buffs always said it was a flying saucer. Now they have evidence. Martin Walker reports BYLINE: Martin Walker IMAGINE a pubescent but pregnant girl, humanoid but distinctly alien, with a bald and giant head and lizard eyes. She could come from the garish cover of any science fiction magazine. Under the scalpel, her flesh gives and bleeds. The joints flex and the limbs bend, and the great wound on the thigh suggests muscle and ligament. The scalpel cuts the flesh away, to reveal a vast skull of unusually thick bone. The surgeon wielding the saw pauses to rest in his work. When the contents of the skull are removed, they are flesh-like, but most unlike a human brain with its grooves and folds. If brain this is, it looks like a chunk of liver on this grainy, soundless black and white film that claims to have been shot in 1947. If these large, elliptical lizard slits are eyes, they are covered with a black film, which is then carefully removed by the surgeons, revealing white orbs. The scalpel goes down the trunk, to the swollen belly which suggests that this small being might have been pregnant. There are female genitalia, but no navel, and no hair. Once the body cavity is exposed, there are no familiar coils of intestine. The body organs are again flesh-like, soft and yet distinctly odd. There are six digits at the end of each long, slim arm, six toes on each foot. This is eerily familiar, from the visions of sci-fi illustrators, and also from the medical books of anatomy, as if this being under the surgeon's knife were a composite of four or five different human pathologies. There are no prosthetics. This does not look like some creation of the Hollywood special effects labs. This seems convincingly to be the autopsy of some kind of being. There are two films. The first lasts about 18 minutes, and takes place in some kind of operating theatre, with surgeons in masks and gowns. The second film is shot from inside a tent, in the half-light of emergency lanterns. The being is largely covered by a sheet. A male and female medical attendant flex the limbs and conduct what seems to be a preliminary examination. A man in civilian clothes is present, and seems to be in charge. This film lasts about three minutes, and there is no sound on either film clip. "If that is a hoax, it is a most elaborate and convincing and believable one," said Congressman Steven Schiff of New Mexico, as he sat and watched the films last month in his Washington office, with his staff and other government officials around him. We were shown the clips, and sworn to secrecy (until now), by the British documentary film-maker John Purdie of Union Pictures. On August 28, these two brief clips of film, which purport to record the US Air Force autopsies of two crashed alien beings, will be screened simultaneously as part of Purdie's Roswell documentary, on Channel 4 in Britain, on Fox-TV in the US, in Japan and in Europe. This film is the first hard evidence to emerge from the most celebrated and best-documented UFO event of all, the mysterious crash of a strange aerial craft near the Roswell Air Force base in New Mexico at 11.30pm on July 4, 1947. Forget about Whitewater and Watergate and even the unsettled issues of who shot President Kennedy. The biggest conspiracy of all, that earth has been visited by aliens and their bodies autopsied on film, is clambering out of the bizarre underworld of the cults and into the realm of the rational and verifiable world. Prodded by his New Mexico constituents and his own curiosity, Congressman Schiff began his own probing of the Roswell mystery three years ago. His first success was to force the US Air Force to drop the cover story it had maintained on Roswell since 1947 - that the crash was of an experimental high-altitude weather balloon, and the strange metal was ordinary tinfoil. Last year, the US Air Force changed its story, telling Congressman Schiff in an official report that this had been a cover story for an important secret. The crash had been of a balloon, but not concerned with weather. It was "Operation Mogul", an experimental high-altitude balloon designed to detect radiation and monitor an eventual first test of a Soviet atom bomb. Unsatisfied with what he calls "the most unaccountable stonewalling I have ever encountered", Congressman Schiff and other legislators have succeeded in ordering the Government Accounting Office, the watchdog of the federal government, to mount its own new inquiry, to track down all documents relating to Roswell held by any US government agency. That report will be delivered to Congressman Schiff on Friday, and will be publicly released next week. The GAO report finds no smoking gun or smoking UFO, but does record a large number of documents destroyed, stressing that this is not necessarily unusual given an event that took place nearly 50 years ago. Conspiracy theorists will seize on what has been destroyed. Less prejudiced historians will question whether an event of this importance could possibly have had all the paper trails erased. There is no doubt that something odd happened at Roswell. The first people to arrive on the Roswell site on July 5, 1947, was a team of archaeologists, led by Dr W Curry Holden of Texas Tech university. They reported to the local sheriff that they had seen "a crashed airplane without wings, and with a fat fuselage". They reported also seeing three bodies, two outside the craft, and one still inside, visible through a gash in the fuselage. >>>CONT'D NEXT<<< -- *-------------------------------* |...............................| |.. legion@werple.mira.net.au ..| |...............................| *-------------------------------* --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2) Ä DFF: Everything About UFO's (2:285/255) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ UFO Ä Msg : 716 of 820 From : Don Allen 1:3618/2 27 Jul 95 22:29:28 To : All 31 Jul 95 01:47:12 Subj : "Guardian" on Roswell 2/2 - Article ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by John Stepkowski * Originally to All * Originally dated 26 Jul 1995, 22:51 From: legion@WERPLE.MIRA.NET.AU (John Stepkowski) Date: 26 Jul 95 07:37:06 GMT Message-ID: <199507260737.RAA11538@werple.mira.net.au> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo >>CONT'D FROM PREVIOUS<< - 2/2 Then came two campers, James Ragsdale and Trudie Truelove, who reported that the bodies were "four or five foot long at the most". Ragsdale was more interested in the unusual metal at the crash site. It looked like tinfoil, but much stronger. "You could take that stuff and wad it up and it would straighten itself out". Within minutes, the sounds of a siren signalled the arrival of Military Police jeeps from the Roswell Army-Air Force base, 35 miles away. Roswell was the home of the 509th Bomb Group, then the world's only atomic strike force, whose newsletter was called "The Atomic Blast". The site was sealed, the civilians were cleared off, and high-ranking civilian and military officials began to fly in to the site. And three days later, the press began to gather, alerted by a press release issued by Lieutenant Walter Haut, public information officer of the 509th, who told the local press of the crash and recovery of "a flying disc". Haut is today the president of the International UFO Museum and research centre at 400, North Main Street, Roswell. A modest store-front building which has become the main tourist asset of the tiny New Mexico town, Haut's Musuem has helped keep the controversy alive. There are further intriguing snippets of evidence, which have kept the Roswell UFO story running as a local issue, fuelling the official interest of the local Republican Congressman Steven Schiff. First, there is the local undertaker, Glenn Dennis, who was asked by the base if he could provide child-sized coffins. Then there was the local fireman Dan Dwyer, whose crew was called out to the crash site, collected some of the mysterious metal debris, and told his family of seeing two body bags and one still-alive being "about the size of a 10-year-old child". There is the local sheriff, George Wilcox, who told his family he and they had been threatened with death if they ever talked about the Roswell crash. There was Major Jesse Marcel, intelligence officer of the 509th bomb group, who took some of the strange metal home to show his children, and they could not decipher the strange hieroglyphic and geometrical shapes that seemed to be markings. The testimony of those local witnesses, and a handful of former military personnel, has been for two decades the tantalising sum of the flimsy array of hearsay evidence and vague memories that has made up the Roswell case. The film was obtained by another British film-maker, Ray Santilli of Merlin Productions, who was originally looking for 1950s documentary footage of rock stars. He found a retired US cameraman with a large collection, who decided finally to make public the films he had taken as a USAF film technician at Roswell, and at the autopsy centre of Fort Worth. "We know the man who took the film, and even though he complains his life will be made a misery once he comes forward, we are hoping to persuade him to explain what happened on camera", John Purdie told The Guardian yesterday. "We are taking an objectively agnostic line." From on-film coding, Kodak confirms that this is film stock from either 1947, or from 1967 - a time when the Roswell UFO story was dead. Congressman Schiff is arranging for US government labs to study the film further, but so far its authenticity has not been questioned. British and US pathologists who have seen the the film say it appears to be a real autopsy, probably performed by surgeons rather than expert pathologists, and using the medical technology of the late 1940s. "If it happened, if there is even one credible piece of evidence that earth has been visited by aliens, it changes everything," commemnted Richard DeMotto, national security aide to Senator Robert Byrd. "It only had to happen once." ============================ -- *-------------------------------* |...............................| |.. legion@werple.mira.net.au ..| |...............................| *-------------------------------* --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: * A UFO..What's that? <-> FidoNet UFO Moderator * (1:3618/2)