 | Philip Mantle |
Philip MantleIt was l993 when I was first contacted by Ray Santilli who eventually informed me of his acquisition of the alien autopsy film. It was not until early l995 that I had the opportunity to view the film in Santilli's London offices. I am fortunate to have seen more film than most and have been privy to some information by Santilli that is not for public or private consumption. My current thoughts on the film are simple: I do not believe Ray Santilli, his company or his associates, have hoaxed the film in any way. I have told Santilli this to his face. I am the first to admit that Santilli has been less than truthful at times but that does not mean he is a hoaxer. Some of the discussions I have had with him leave me in no doubt that he is not involved in a hoax. Added to this, my colleague Tim Matthews and I have continued where others left off in the investigation of this film. We were the ones responsible for exposing the 'tent footage' hoax and identifying those involved. Our research into the photographic techniques used, the artifacts in the film, etc., have all proven to be from the l947 era. We even have a number of people who claim to have seen the film in the l960's and l970's, long before Santilli came on the scene.   But the one piece of evidence we
should not ignore is that of the special effects experts. It is true
that some do believe we are looking at a flesh and blood creature, but
the vast majority are convinced it is a 'rubber man.' Not only do they
believe it is a fake but they have highlighted several mistakes in the
film that are only really recognizable when pointed out by the FX
experts.So, if the film is not a hoax by Santilli but is still a fake -- i.e., not a real alien -- then what could it be? Could it be some kind of US Intelligence propaganda film? Imagine the US Intelligence services producing such a film and having it filtered through to the Soviets as if to say, "Not only do we have our own nuclear weapons but we have captured alien technology as well." This could explain why people did see it in the 60's and 70's and why a lot of doubt has been placed on the cameraman's testimony. Perhaps Santilli has had the wool pulled over his eyes? This is only a working hypothesis as far as I'm concerned but it is one that I think should be explored further and should not be ignored. So, what do I think the AA film is, well I call it a 'real-fake.' Not a hoax by Santilli and Co, but possibly some kind of US Intelligence production which may or may not have been used for propaganda purposes again the Soviet Union. Perhaps time will tell if I'm right or not? In the meantime I can only hope that our literary agent John White locates a publisher for our proposed book on the film in which most of our research can be divulged in greater detail. Philip Mantle. 22 September 2001. =============================================================== ALIEN AUTOPSY UP-DATE Article By Philip Mantle September 22, 2001 In l995 London based businessman Ray Santilli caused what has been arguably the biggest controversy in the entire history of UFO research when he launched his 'Alien Autopsy' film across the front pages of magazines and via the TV screen in over 20 different countries. By far the most popular TV documentary made at the time was the Fox Network's 'Alien Autopsy - Fact or Fiction?' which has often been repeated on numerous cable and satellite stations. RECAP  For those who are unaware of this
controversial film, a brief recap might be in order. London video
producer Ray Santilli claimed that in l992 he was in Cleveland, Ohio in
the USA looking for vintage film clips of rock-n-roll performers from
the l950's. People like Elvis Presley and Pat Boone were at the top of
his list. Santilli claimed that he met an elderly gentleman from who he
purchased a rare clip of the late Elvis live on stage. The elderly chap
had filmed the piece himself while working as a freelance cameraman in
l950's. Shortly before returning home Santilli was contacted by this
elderly cameraman again who this time had something different to offer.
The story he told was that prior to being a freelance cameraman he was a
cameraman with the US Army and in l947 he had been flown to Roswell, New
Mexico on a special assignment. Initially he was informed that he was to
film the crash of a Soviet spy plane but on arrival it became clear that
this was no Russian plane. Instead he claimed to have filmed the UFO
crash at Roswell in l947 and not only that, but the actual autopsy of 2
of the dead aliens. Quite naturally Santilli was more
than interested and at a later date he visited the cameraman at his home
to view this other footage. To his amazement it did indeed appear to
show the autopsy of an alien. Santilli immediately agreed to buy the
film for cash, the only other condition being that he was never to
reveal the identify of the cameraman himself. Santilli, not having the
amount of money involved, reported to be around $150,000, but never
confirmed, eventually turned to his German business partner Volker
Spielberg for assistance. Over the next couple of years Santilli
purchased the film and transported it to the UK where it was transferred
to video. In l993 Santilli contacted myself to see if I might be able to
assist in the making of a UFO documentary. Eventually he told me of the
film he had purchased and his plans to commercialise it. It was not
until early l995 that I first saw any of the film. My wife Sue and I
visited Santilli's offices in London on several occasions to view the
film. At the time I was the conference organiser for the British UFO
Research Association (BUFORA) and already had a conference planned for
August l995. I asked Santilli if he would show the film at the
conference and he agreed to do so.In the meantime, after a private screening organised by Santilli in London to an invited audience only, he set about selling the rights to the film to a wide variety of publishers and TV companies around the world. First to publish stills from the film was VSD in France and soon copies were flying around the world via the internet. The day after our conference in August l995 saw the film broadcast on TV around the world. And the rest, they say, is history. CLAIMS There have been numerous claims and counter claims surrounding this film and there simply is not enough room to cover all of these here. But a brief look at one or two of them are included here. Santilli has always claimed that the film has been tested and dated as being l947 vintage. This is in fact incorrect. Snippets of film have been seen and tested but none of them had any scenes on them from the film broadcast on TV or seen on video. Therefore, the exact date of the film still remains open to question. Claims by Santilli about other scenes such a the crash site being on the film have also proven unfounded. Most UFO researchers have dismissed the film as a fake, usually accusing Santilli as the hoaxer and in some instances even with my assistance. The fact remains, however, that there is no proof that Santilli is a hoaxer and there may even be some evidence to the contrary. ON-GOING RESEARCH For the last 3 years or so I have been assisted in further research into the so-called 'Alien Autopsy' film by my colleague Tim Matthews. Tim is a well known UFO sceptic in Britain as well as an author and lecturer on the subject. In order to keep the research into this film balanced I felt that Tim was the ideal researcher to ask for assistance. Prior to this I had worked with the German researcher Michael Hesemann and together we co-authored 'BEYOND ROSWELL' which featured some of the early research into the film. What I am to attempt now is to look at some new and old information to see if it either supports the authenticity of the film or adds to the weight of it being a fraud. SGT. CLIFFORD STONE  First off is a segment of
information that seems to have gone largely unnoticed in our book
'BEYOND ROSWELL.' Earlier this year US researcher Steven Greer held a
special event in the USA as part of his Disclosure Project. Many
military personnel stood up in front of a media audience telling of
their involvement or knowledge of the UFO phenomena. One such witness
was Sgt. Clifford Stone, US Army (retired). Stone was interviewed in
l996 by US researcher Ted Loman and he claimed that in l969 he was
stationed at Fort Lee, Virginia. He was part of a Quick Reaction Team.
During his work he had to take a Lieutenant to Fort Belvoir. While at
Fort Belvoir he and another person, an airman with the USAF, went for a
walk around the base. While on a tour of the base they came across an
auditorium, a bit like a small theatre. They were looking down through a
Plexiglas window into this auditorium which was filled with military
personnel who seemed to be watching UFO films. Stone and his colleague
thought they must be trailers for Science Fiction movies of some kind.
Stone also saw a film depicting bodies of creatures that were not human.
Eventually Stone and his colleague were caught and were 'debriefed' in
an extremely firm manner. Basically, they were ordered not to reveal
anything and that they had indeed seen nothing. Reluctantly, both
parties agreed to this. It was not until l995 when Stone saw the 'Alien
Autopsy' film that he made the connection between it and what he had
seen back in l969. Stone was convinced that the film he saw in l969 and
the Santilli film were one of the same.Obviously if Santilli had faked the film Sgt. Clifford Stone could not have seen it in the apparent ownership of the US military in l969. Sgt. Stone is only one of several former US military personnel who claim to have seen the film while on active duty long in advance of Santilli's ownership. FRANK SALAS  Many so-called experts
have argued against the films authenticity stating that it was filmed on
video and not 16mm film as claimed. All the genuine film and
photographic experts that we have been in contact with disagree and are
more than convinced that there is enough evidence to suggest it was
indeed shot on 16mm. One man outside of Santilli's company who knows
this for sure is Mr. Frank Salas. The reason for this being that Salas
is the technician who transferred the original 16mm film onto video at
his place of work in London. We have 2 taped interviews with Salas and
he informed us that at the request of Santilli's company he was sent the
film and transferred it onto video. It was transferred on to both VHS
and Betacam. He told us that some of the film was in pretty poor quality
but other parts of it were not too bad at all. Salas gave us detailed
information of how he transferred the 16mm film onto video including the
types of equipment he used etc. He was in no doubt that it was indeed
16mm but he would not guess at its age as this was not his area of
expertise. Salas went on to state that it was indeed the autopsy film he
transferred and that he was under no added pressure to keep this secret
other than the normal client confidentiality. In fact, Salas would only
agree to answer our questions after receiving a fax giving him
permission to do so by Ray Santilli himself. Santilli did this at our
request. As far as Salas was concerned, if this was a hoax, it was a
very, very good one, but he did not think it was.So, for the first time we have someone outside of Santilli's company who actually handled the 16mm film and saw the autopsy images on it. This, according to many, was not possible as it was a contemporary hoax filmed only on video. A military witness from l969, a civilian film technician, but is there anyone else who can support either of these stories? MIKE MALONEY  Mike Maloney is the Group Chief
Photographer at Mirror Group Newspapers and is the only working press
photographer to be awarded fellowships from both the Royal Photographic
Society and the British Institute of Professional Photographers. To
date, Maloney has collected 96 major photographic awards including Press
Photographer of the Year three times. He is in fact the most highly
awarded photographer in the UK. He has mingled with the powerful and the
famous including dinner in the Kremlin with President Gorbachev, dinner
at The White House with President Reagan, lunch in Monte Carlo with
Grace Kelly and dinner with Jackie Onassis in New York. Maloney has said
on tape that in the l970's he was covering a couple of movies at the
Disney Corporation in California. While dining with the head of the
Disney studios Maloney was introduced to 4 of the original Disney
animators. While chatting with them he was introduced to another person
who in turn invited him to the viewing of some most unusual films. He
was invited to this man's house which had an old projector. On the
screen came film clips of UFOs and, you guessed it, scenes from the
alien autopsy. It was 16mm film and these films were not created by
Disney or anyone else for that matter. They were the genuine article.
Maloney claims to have seen other reels of film from the same batch
rather than exactly the same scenes in the Santilli film. He has no
doubt though that they are of the same thing. We asked him whether he
felt the Santilli film was a fake. "I am convinced, Philip, it's not a
fake. It am convinced it's not a hoax."Perhaps one section that has been most vocally against the authenticity of the film has been Special Effects experts. Most, but not all, are convinced that we are dealing with rubber and latex and not flesh and blood. Again, our research has brought us into contact with many FX experts and their expert testimony cannot be ignored. ROB TOWNSHEND One recent such FX expert to comment on the film is Rob Townshend. Townshend has been working on the blockbuster movie 'Lord of the Rings' in New Zealand although he is from the UK. Having an interest in the UFO subject he happened across our book 'BEYOND ROSWELL' in New Zealand and he has had these comments to say regarding the 'Alien Autopsy' film. "As for the alien itself, this would be a huge undertaking for the special make-up effects crew. I have spent quite some time thinking over many ways that this could be created. Once the look of the creature had been established it is then a fairly standard procedure to build. From the completed moulds its outer skin and all other internal anatomy can be made. For most its outer skin and 'guts' gelatin could and would make a very realistic and organic appearance. It would also behave like flesh as it can be tinted to what ever colour is needed and has the translucent quality of real skin and flesh.  "There are many materials available to the
effects artist. Gelatin and its formulas have been around and in use in
the film industry for many years, also it would be one of the most cost
effective options in terms of part of the materials budget. Having been
asked over the years to supply horror and gore effects it is a point to
note that the "real thing" on film and in life for that matter, looks
like a badly made dummy. About 10 years ago I supplied the make-up
effects for a film titled 'Seven Days under Mavis.' It told the true
story of a macabre depiction of love in the autumn years. The bond
between a married couple is tested in the extreme when Mavis collapses
and dies on her husband pinning him to the floor for a week. I made all
the prosthetic body bits to too real with the colour being matched and
yet it looked fake. I had to redo the cosmetic look of the make-up so
that it would 'read' better on film so it looked 'cool.' Here was
decompositional make-up copied from life (or death for that matter) and
yet it still looked fake. The point I'm making is that the Santilli
creature could very well be real due to the fact that it does tend to
behave as a real cadaver would."Special effects experts like Mr. Townshend and others can only base their opinions on what they see on the film and no one can be sure which one of them is right and which one wrong. It the film is a hoax, then what did Stone and Maloney see and why has no one involved in its creation yet stepped forward? Not knowing what our research would uncover has indeed dealt us a few surprises: a former US Army Sergeant who observed the film on a US military base in l969, the UK's highest award winning professional photographer who viewed other scenes from the film in the l970's in the USA, the film technician who confirmed it was on 16mm film before he transferred it on to video, and a UK special effects artist who disagreed with many of his colleagues and stated on the record for the first time that the creature could well be a real cadaver. BACK WITH SANTILLI  But what of Ray
Santilli? After all, he is the man who started all of this controversy
in the first place. In August of 2001 I caught up with him and
interviewed him on tape for the first time in many years. I asked
Santilli if he stuck to his story of how he obtained the film. "Yes I
do. Absolutely. There's no reason to change it because the story is the
truth." Santilli went it to state yet again that he believes the
cameraman's story and that he is hopeful that either the cameraman or
members of his family will eventually go public. Until they do, Santilli
will not reveal his identity. The film is housed in Europe and Santilli
and his colleagues are not against releasing the remainder of the film
to A TV company should they receive the right offer. Santilli did
however impart some further information that he had not previously made
public as far as I'm aware. I asked him if he had any other film that he
had not shown or discussed with anyone. He told me, "Well, the only film
that most people want to have access to, and I think it will probably
have more interest to the UFO community, is obviously the footage from
the debris site itself. There are many reels and pieces of film that
haven't been examined yet even by us. You know that is something that
can be commercialised at a later date. We've always made it clear that
we have many reels of film and that some of it is relevant and some of
it is not. Some of it has got material on the film that does not relate
to the alien but helps to qualify the period of time and what the
cameraman was doing during those few weeks." And what does Santilli
himself believe the film depicts? "I think there are only 2
possibilities. One is that it is the real thing, that this creature is
from a vehicle that comes from another world; and the other explanation
is that it was an experiment that was being conducted by the Americans
in that area after the war using German expertise and shows some kind of
biological experiment and that the creature is a deformed or created
creature for the purpose of testing secret weapons. In my opinion these
are the only 2 possibilities."While most UFO researchers and members of the public alike have assigned the 'Alien Autopsy' film to the hoax bin, this short article has shown that it is not as clear cut as some would have you believe. The comments from Salas, Maloney and Townshend are published here for the very first time and this article only represents the tip of the iceberg as far as on-going research into the film is concerned. My colleague Tim Matthews and I have compiled all of our research into one tome entitled 'Alien Autopsy Inquest' (contact from publishers welcomed) and our literary agent in the USA in busying himself as we speak in trying to find us the correct publisher. Until then, research into the film will continue. INFORMATION REQUEST If anyone has any information concerning Ray Santilli's controversial 'Alien Autopsy' film I would like to hear from them. You can contact me in confidence via: Philip Mantle, 1 Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire, England, WF17 7SW. E-mail: About the author: Philip Mantle is the former Director of Investigations for the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) and MUFON Representative for England. An international lecturer and broadcaster he is the co-author of 'Without Consent' and 'Beyond Roswell.' More information concerning the 'Alien Autopsy' film can be located on the Alien Autopsy Archive section of our web site at: wwww.beyondroswell.com ==========++++++++++===========+++++++++++=========== Re:
Mantle's review I've juggled the options Mantle explores, and agree that there is something to be said for them. Psychological warfare is perhaps the most logical. I would rank "military experiment" as the second most likely (assuming, of course, that this is an actual film). If this represents an actual saucer crash, then the questions raised in my own essay need to be addressed. At this point, I think the most proactive thing we can do is chemically date the film, which I'm satisfied exists--somewhere. However, I don't foresee Santilli allowing this until he finds it commercially viable. Mac Tonnies () 105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112 http://mactonnies.com ==========++++++++++==========++++++++++========== Re: The AA
Film I put a link on the opening page which links the interested to the Dreamland section and the area where they can listen to your appearance. http://www.beyondroswell.com/roswell/autopsy.html I liked your appearance but, to my ears, you gave the impression that you've seen 16 MM footage with the creature on it. If I'm correct, nobody has seen that, expect "maybe" the transfer technician, (and we can't verify even that yet), and Santilli. In any event, you did a commendable job. I've been on the radio on a couple of occasions, and to much less effect and success. Good job Philip! Mark Center ===========++++++++++==========++++++++++========== I
posed this question in posting #2..."If Stone & Maloney saw basically
the same AA film as Santilli's in 1969, was FX technology back then
capable of producing the creature we see in the AA film? Date: 13 Oct 2001 21:55: Your question is indeed thought provoking. I have another hypothesis. There were reports that the US had access to *two* crash sites, one of them was Roswell. There is a possibility that two separate autopsies were performed. We all know that the army is very standardized in how it does things, thus the environs may look quite similar, but not exact. That is another option we can address if indeed it is found that the films (whenever the other comes to light) are compared. Regards, Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:29:09
EDT If you're dating the film to 1969 based on the testimonies of Clifford Stone, then I believe that you are being taken for a ride. Stone's military record tells us that Stone enlisted in August, 1968, and was in basic training and typing school in 1968, and who was assigned as a clerk typist in 1970. Would he be brought in to review the autopsy film in the late 1960s given that sort of a background? He was a high school graduate with no special training or expertise that would require his opinion. In fact, there is nothing in his record to support his claims. He was a clerk/typist or admin specialist for his entire military career. There is nothing to suggest specialized training in the military, or assignments that would have put him into a position to do what he claims. Under specialized training, he attended the standard classes of Code of Conduct, military justice, benefits of honorable discharge, and two on race relations. While it is clear that he has an extensive knowledge of UFOs, it is also clear that he has an active imagination that includes all sorts of strange meetings with military and civilian personnel warning him to keep his mouth shut. Many of his stories are self contradictory, and should be rejected. The point is that Cliff Stone did not see the alien autopsy film in the late 1960s. He was in no position to see it, there is no reason for him to have seen it, and there is nothing in his record to suggest any special assignments... and yes, I know that while those assignments would be secret, there would be hints about them and there are not. KRandle Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:52:09
EDT Good Morning I believe that as a military officer with training in security matters, I must comment on the tales told be Cliff Stone. We know from his record that he was a clerk/typist for his entire military career. He has a high school education, and has little in the way of military training other than basic training, AIT (which is an extension of basic training) and Clerk/typist schools. He was assigned throughout his military career as a clerk/typist and admin specialist. He has no special training or recognized expertise that would have made him a candidate for special assignments of the nature he claims. I should also point out, and Stone knows this, that classified briefings, of the kind he claims to have inadvertently witnessed, are held in special locations with thick curtains drawn over the windows and guards posted at areas of possible compromise. As a personal example, as an intelligence officer responsible for classified briefings, I posted guards on the access doors to the briefing room on the second floor of a hangar, set on the airfield, inside a chainlink fence so thatno one get close enough to listen, even though it would have been nearly impossible for them to do so. We had "blackout" curtains on the windows, even though we were on the second floor, on the side of the building that was open ramp area so that no one could be hiding close at hand, and the screen was recessed so that even if they could look in the windows, they probably couldn't have seen the screen. The point is, during classified briefings, especially one that should have been giving top secret material, an Army private would not have been able to get close enough to look in the windows and see these films. If nothing else, the curtains would have been drawn. These things are taken very seriously by the military, and people would have been court martialed for such a breach of security. What this means is that Stone's tale of seeing the movie in 1969 is preposterous. Since we have found other discrepancies with tales he has told and statements he has made, I'm afraid that we cannot accept, at face value, this story. It provides no corroboration for the autopsy film in 1969 because this event, Stone's remarkable breech of military security (which went unpunished, I might add), just couldn't happen and in the end should be rejected. KRandle Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001
22:17: Hi Dave. Clifford Stone was interviewed by Ted Loman on February 20, 1996. Below are Stone's comments as reported by Nexus magazine in regards to the UFO film he claims to have seen back in 1969. There were these common saucer-shaped UFOs, cigar-shaped UFOs...and you also had bodies. The airman and I went ahead and tried to figure out what movies these came from because we had an interest in SF... There were several types of bodies... When we did this, some people came in and told us to follow, in no uncertain terms." Both were arrested and underwent an "intensified debriefing" which took four nights and five days. "When I saw the Santilli tape, I saw the pictures first: they were haunting, because they took me back to this day in 1969, to these movies that they were watching. There were bodies that looked very, very, very close to that one. And there were alive ones, also. I have knowledge that there is footage within a tent. I have knowledge of a film with-if that is not Truman in the film, it is a very convincing double." If this interview is accurate, there is little to support the conclusion that Stone did indeed see Santilli's Alien Autopsy film and that this same film must have existed as early as 1969. Do you recall seeing any saucer and cigar shaped UFOs, several types of bodies including living aliens or even President Truman or his double in Santilli's video? I didn't. Since Stone also makes an apparent reference to Santilli's tent footage, could not one also argue that the film he saw back in 1969 was actually the hoaxed film of the second UFO alien, a film that Santilli himself doesn't believe is real and is separate from his Alien Autopsy film? Another thing that makes me cast serious doubt on Stone's claim is that if he and his airman friend really did see a government film on the reality of UFOs and their alien occupants, why could I not find a reference to this very important incident in his detailed one kilogram-plus book, 'U.F.O.s Are Real - Extraterrestrial Encounters Documented By The U.S. Government'? Since the Alien Autopsy film was no longer considered to be authentic footage by most ufologists by 1997, could it be that Stone would not want any association with this apparent hoax? My guess is that since Stone and his airman friend had "an interest in SF" and because they attempted "to figure out what movies these came from", this incident could be nothing more than a colourful recollection of a "four nights and five days" movie marathon of science fiction movies at Fort Belvoir. Just my opinion. As for Mike Maloney, how could anyone be so sure that a film he saw two decades earlier, but can no longer review, be the same as Santilli's Alien Autopsy film? During the past few years I have purchased videos of the many flying saucer movies and T.V. shows that made a big impression in my childhood's mind. So many details were different in those videos from what I remembered that I have sometimes wondered if they were really the same as those I saw as a child. Nick Balaskas ++++++++++=========+++++++++=========+++++++++ TENT FOOTAGE ON UK TV Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 PRESS RELEASE: Last night the British cable TV station UK Horizons broadcast its 'Top Ten Hoaxes' show at 7.00 pm. One of the items briefly discussed was the so-called 'Tent Footage' section of the Alien Autopsy Film. This saw the first TV interview of Keith Bateman. one of the co-owners at the time of AK Music, the company that faked the Tent Footage. Bateman discussed how they had received film from Santilli to clean and transfer to video. When looking at the film there was nothing on it so they decided to have some fun at Santilli's expense. They faked the Tent Footage and passed it back to Santilli without him knowing what they had done. This is in contrast to Robert Kiviat's 'World Greatest Hoaxes' show of a few years back in the USA. Here one of the technicians from AK Music, Elliot, who doubled as one of the 'actors' in the Tent Footage, stated quite clearly that they had been paid by Santilli to fake the film. Santilli, not being happy with it, allegedly then went else where to see if someone could do a better job. The result allegedly being the Alien Autopsy and debris film. I briefly took part in last nights UK Horizons show but the fact remains that it was the research conducted by myself and my colleague Tim Matthews that uncovered the Tent Footage fake and exposed it as such. The full story of this will form a full chapter in our planned book. The Alien Autopsy Film itself still remains unproven one way or the other. To date no one has come forward to conclusively prove it to be authentic or for it to be a fake. Indeed, evidence is available to support both points of view but no definitive proof. Tim Matthews, myself (Philip Mantle), along with a number of colleagues in different parts of the world are continuing our research into this film in the hope that one day we will eventually get to the bottom of it one way or the other. I'd therefore still like to request that if you have any information on this film to contact me at the earliest opportunity via: Philip Mantle, E-mail: Yours sincerely,
|
| Philip Mantle |
Home