UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 15

Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:38:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:48:29 -0500
Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction


Regarding...

>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 07:11:41 EST
>Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

Gildas wrote:

>>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 22:59:22 -0500
>>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Regarding the FOX 'Hoax Special' program...

>> <snip>

>>Still many more questions than answers.


>Thank you for your interesting analysis, and your very appropriate
>conclusion...


Gildas,

I was hoping Ray Santilli would clarify some questions I had
asked concerning the 'tent footage' story before I replied to
your mail. Unfortunately, although perhaps not unexpectedly, he
hasn't.

>... it seems to me. Just a few more thoughts: I find very improbable
>that Ray Santilli, a small music producer, would have launched in
>such a risky and costly operation of producing a highly complex hoax
>by himself.

Yes, the very idea of creating an 'alien autopsy' which would be
sufficiently credible to be taken seriously has so many problems
to overcome that it's difficult to understand why anyone would
invest in such a project.

Even if, as must surely be the case, the hoax could be
accomplished for a relatively small outlay, there's little
guarantee that both the film and those claiming authenticity
wouldn't be ridiculed, especially creating such a bizarre
'alien', although it was, by design or good fortune,
sufficiently 'humanoid' to be 'acceptable'.

The only comparative 'humaniod alien autopsy' I've seen is a
brief sequence in the 'Hangar 18' movie. You don't see them
actually perform the 'autopsy' though!


>I am surprised that the very possible hypothesis of a "secret
>services" operation has been paid so little attention, apparently (or
>am I wrong here?).

It would be more surprising if the 'conspiracy' angle hadn't
been suggested!


>What would be the purpose of such an operation? Perhaps two purposes.

>The first one would be to jam inquiries on Roswell getting too close
>to the truth.

I don't think ufology generally needs any help in that respect.


>Please note the worldwide release of the film coincided with the GAO
>report which, as a consequence, drew little attention in the press.

The timescale doesn't really equate and there's some important
background detail documented in the 'Manikin Who Fell to Earth'
feature on my web site, at:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/aa_qa.htm

As mentioned therein, I located and obtained a copy of a
newspaper article published by the UK 'Daily Mirror' newspaper
17 August, 1992. A two-page spread, entitled 'ELVIS: his last
amazing letter', it tells the story of considerable and rare
Elvis Presley memorabilia which had been located in the US and
would feature in a documentary called 'Private Presley'.

The article mentions Ray Santilli and his company.

Ray told me, "I came back with many hours of rare Elvis film, so
rare that Polygram commissioned a report by ex-BMG (RCA)
director Roger Seaman".

Referencing some further facts noted in my 'Manikin...' summary:

* Back in Time *

The Cleveland visit in the summer of 1992 is factual and it
seems Ray Santilli did acquire a significant collection of Elvis
Presley film clips and memorabilia.

One of the first people he spoke to about the alleged "Roswell"
footage was Carl Nagaitis, a journalist with an interest in the
Elvis Presley story.

Nagaitis was also to co-author "Without Consent", a book on the
subject of "alien abductions". The co-author was Philip Mantle,
at that time Director of Investigations for BUFORA.

I discussed the case with both of them and they helpfully
clarified the background.


Via Mantle, Nagaitis released a statement explaining his
involvement:

"This is to confirm that I first met Ray Santilli in l992 while
researching an article for the Sunday People about some
never-before-seen photos of Elvis Presley. Ray was interested in
selling the rights to the story through a national newspaper.

Although we didn't do a deal, Ray and I got on well and he told
me how he had made many trips to the USA in search of the
material.

When I left Mirror Group Newspapers in January l993 I kept in
touch with my contacts, including Ray, and I had several
meetings with him about various possible projects. It was during
one of these meetings, in February or March of l993, that he
revealed that he had seen some remarkable material while in the
USA. He did not reveal the nature of that material".


This could be an allusion to the film which was to surface
almost two years later and is the first reference to any
"remarkable material" that I'm aware of.

Nagaitis continues, "Later in the year, when Ray and I were
discussing the possibility of a video on UFOs and alien
abductions (another aborted project) he went on to add that the
film he had managed to get from the USA was connected with the
Roswell Incident.

I remember that he mentioned this to be before I actually
introduced him to you (Philip Mantle)".


Mantle takes up the story:

"I was contacted by Ray Santilli in l993, the exact date of
which I did not keep.

Ray may have located me via Carl Nagaitis or by some of the
publicity that I was involved in at the time helping to promote
the movie "Fire in the Sky". To be perfectly honest, I am not
100 % sure how Ray located me but it was probably via one of the
two options above. At the time of my first contact with Ray
Santilli it was immediately clear to me that he knew either very
little or nothing about the Roswell case and UFOs in general.

The subject matter we discussed was mainly on abductions as I
recall, this being my idea as I was in the process of writing a
book on them at the time. However, I discussed many ideas none
of which, at that that time, included or involved anything to do
with Roswell or crashed UFO's in general".


"All I can say regarding Ray Santilli's "knowledge" of the
Roswell event is that as far as I'm aware he knew little or
nothing about it when I first met him. For example, for a long
time he called Roswell "Rosewell" and was not familiar with any
of the well known names of witnesses and/or investigators
associated with the case". [End]


Philip has confirmed that he told Santilli's tale to a few
'trusted colleagues', including John Spencer and Walt Andrus,
when Andrus was in the UK speaking at BUFORA's 1993 conference.

So, the story has its origins much further back than perhaps
generally realised.


It does nothing to verify the authenticity of the 'alien
autopsy' footage or the 'cameraman', still, in answer to the
question how likely was it that Ray Santilli would acquire
genuine 'Roswell' footage, we might say it was as likely as
finding the last letter Elvis Presley perhaps wrote and hours of
rare Presley film.

Than again, we might not...


Ray claims to have finally acquired all of the footage in
November/December 1994 and his explanation for the lengthy gap
since he allegedly first saw some of the film in the summer of
1992, was that he couldn't raise the finance.

In hindsight, if a hoax controlled by Ray, there was no
obligation for him to have explained how the purchase was
financed, however, he named a business acquaintance, Volker
Spielberg, and as you know Spielberg stated in the French TF1
documentary that he was a "collector", and did have "the film
reels".

This may, however, simply have been a planned excuse for later
'difficulties' in providing even one frame of archive, 16mm
'autopsy' film. As a hoax, it was extremely unlikely that any
'autopsy' frames would be offered as evidence which could be
independently tested.

And no surprises there...


A complex, yet by no means incredulous background to the claims
and that's before we even consider the questions of why an
'alien autopsy' hoax was considered worth the financial
investment and risk, plus Santilli's potential loss of business
and public credibility, who was responsible for the exceptional
SFX, how some of the effects were achieved, where it was filmed,
processed, by whom, when, etc.

All of which remain unknown, at the time of writing.

Not exactly a 'case closed'.


However, the bottom line is that despite the many unanswered
questions, anything founded on 'Roswell aliens' struggles to
reach first base and from the initial appearance of the 'tent
footage' there have been clear indications all along that the
entire escapade was a grandiose hoax, with Theresa Carlson's
dedicated research appearing to have eventually provided
absolute proof of that.

Doubt not the ability of a competent hoax to be sufficiently
anomalous and a spectacular hoax to be a real pain in the...


>In France, the autopsy footage was a disaster, not only for
Roswell >but for ufology itself, from which we are slowly
recovering.

Perhaps more of a disaster for 'Roswell' as the purported crash
of an ET spacecraft, or two/three etc. ET spacecraft and
resulting genuine 'alien autopsies', was that as the Santilli
footage became sufficiently credible to justify major UK and US,
indeed world-wide TV documentaries, Glenn Dennis's pivotal
Roswell 'autopsy' claims and perceptions of how the _real_
aliens looked, were being accepted as unreliable, if not simply
untrue.

As one of the main objections from 'Roswell' ET crash proponents
had been that the 'body' in the footage didn't correspond with
witness descriptions, it was a contest which Ray's alien easily
won.

It was at least still maintaining some credibility.


Frank Kaufmann's 'Roswell aliens', I would only mention in the
same sentence as my hope that one day Kevin Randle, or someone,
will be able to put to Kaufmann the questions I had raised and
documented re Kaufmann's claims.


>The second purpose, on the other hand, might be to accustom the
>general public to the idea of the alien presence on Earth, and to the
>future revelation of secret operations, which require obviously a
>long preparation (That's my optimistic touch).

As the 'popular face' of 'ufology' is effectively a declaration
that 'aliens' are zipping in and out of our bedrooms and a
clandestine US government has kept a dark secret from simple
folks for over 50 years, the public must be pretty well
accustomed to the idea by now!

Thankfully, they're not all so gullible and don't accept
everything at face value.

Any ufologists who might feel this is heresy, will hopefully
realise this is the precept applied from the beginning and with
some hostility to the 'alien autopsy'.


>All this does not necessarily mean that the film is authentic. It may
>just be close to the truth, but with some deliberate inaccuracies,
>just like, perhaps in other operations such as the MJ-12 documents,
>etc.

If the 'alien autopsy' was a disaster for ufology, a suitable
analogy for the patently bogus and quite ridiculous 'MJ-12' soap
opera would have to be something like mega-disaster.

Again, never underestimate what a reasonably competent hoax can
achieve and how it will be magnified by those who have an innate
desire to believe in it, or see the opportunities in supporting
and promoting it.


>I would be interested to read convincing arguments against this
>hypothesis.

I'm not sure if it's convincing, but it's an argument!


>Incidentally, I may have some information to release soon on the 'KGB
>Secrets' TV production. Russian ufologist Boris Shurinov, to whom I
>sent the video, has already presented a rather devastating analysis
>of it at a recent conference in Italy (Cagliari, in Sardinia, 12
>december 1998). He is to send me soon a summary of it (he was
>completing his inquiry) with his authorization to circulate it. Just
>to give an example,  he claims that the uniforms of the soldiers are
>not correct : they wear an officer's belt!

I'm sure this analysis would be of great interest to everyone.

Although I haven't seen any mention of it, possibly due to total
apathy, the TNT network's 'Secrets of the KGB UFO Files', or
whatever, was shown in the UK about six weeks ago.

As another presumed hoax, the scale of the 'crashed flying
saucer' footage was impressive and again indicated an ostensibly
competent recreation of a supposed real event.

Like the 'alien autopsy', the circumstantial 'documentary'
evidence also looked to be authentic.

It's an immense problem and questions whether any actually
genuine 'UFO' footage or related documents acquired under
'dubious' circumstances are now accepted to be bogus by default.


Incidentally, I recently taped, 'Secrets of the KGB JFK
Assassination Files' which was also hosted by Roger Moore,
resplendent in his 'spy' trenchcoat.

Assuming this has been shown in the US, although I also haven't
seen this mentioned, did it precede or supersede the 'TNT'
program?

It wasn't apparently a 'TNT' production, however, some of the
supposed 'hidden video' sequences showing the 'KGB secret files'
being purchased on the black market, had distinct similarities
to the TNT footage.


In any event, I'm hopeful there will shortly be quite
significant developments in the 'Santilli affair' and I can
explain what this relates to.



James.
E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com