UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 19

Re: The Truth About The 'Tent Footage' Hoax

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:04:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:36:26 -0500
Subject: Re: The Truth About The 'Tent Footage' Hoax

>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:36:30 +0000
>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: The Truth About The 'Tent Footage' Hoax

Neil wrote:

>A couple of the "odd" points in this tale to think about:

>If, as Ray has said in the past ALL his source material was on 16mm
>FILM, why would he approach a VIDEO production company with a TAPE
>for enhancement??. Wouldn't he be far better served taking the FILM
>to a FILM facility and work with the original source material not
>even a first generation TAPE copy?


This is an intriguing twist in the tale.

It has been now confirmed that Ray first approached Keith
Bateman's video production company to ask if they could enhance
video tape footage of a supposed 'alien'.

So, at this point:

1. Ray did have some footage on video which he claimed was of an
'alien'. Whether he believed it was genuine we don't know.

2. Significantly, the images were of such poor quality that
nothing could apparently be enhanced.

Therefore, there was presumably some problem with the original
source of the images.

One conceivable explanation is that the original source was old
film, from which the images couldn't be recovered.

It seems unlikely that the video tape at this point in 1994
contained hoaxed 'alien' footage, otherwise there should be no
problem with the image quality.

What's missing to support this hypothesis is evidence that Ray
had in the first instance taken the claimed 16mm film to a
'facilities house', who had then transferred the images from
16mm film to video.

Whilst the evidence may be absent and Ray has never publicly
stated that was the sequence of events, he did tell me this was
in fact "the true story", stating in July of last year that
after the "first footage" was transferred at a facility in
London, "There was practically no image which is why I took it
to the video studio".

This was after Philip Mantle had published details of how he had
been contacted by someone who knew the 'tent footage' was a hoax
and Ray's comments were in response to some questions I asked
him about the hoax claim.

It makes sense and as Ray confided the name of the company who
had transferred the 16mm film, it may be possible to confirm the
providence of this particular claim, although it's proving to be
difficult as the company may no longer exist. Assuming of course
that it ever did.

A further little twist, not mentioned in the article, is that
Keith Bateman confirmed the video Ray provided was in the
American NTSC format.

I would deduce this means that either he had acquired this video
from the US, or, was intending to return it to the US.

Ray's most recent public response to the 'tent footage' expose

"The Tent Footage was the first film material I collected from
the cameraman, it was in the form of 16mm film and in very poor
condition. I brought it back to England and asked a studio
facility in Milton Keynes to retrieve whatever image they could
from it. Approximately a week (maybe longer) after delivery the
Studio in Milton Keynes presented me with the film which has
become known as the ""Tent Footage" I was told that this was all
that could be retrieved from the film.

I had informed the cameraman by telephone that we were able to
retrieve some image and indeed showed the film to Philip Mantel
and other interested parties. I returned to the States later to
collect the main film and showed the "Tent Footage" on VHS to
the cameraman".

Now this is a significantly different story from Keith
Bateman's, who maintains that Ray knew the 'tent footage' was a

Leaving this aside for the moment, if Ray did intend to show the
'cameraman' what had been retrieved from the 16mm film, he would
surely have had the results copied onto an NTSC formatted video
tape. Yes, he does say it was on VHS, however Ray isn't someone
who is precise with details, even when he's retelling a story
known to be true, and I would take this to mean that he _claims_
to have shown the 'tent footage' on video, i.e. "VHS" to the

If he ever did so, it would surely be an NTSC formatted video,
rather than the UK standard VHS.

Could it be that he did have some old 16mm film transferred to
NTSC formatted video and that the resulting images were so poor,
he asked some friends in the video industry f they could improve
the quality?

There are indications this may, conceivably, be true.

Even accepting the problems with Ray's 'tent footage' promotion
and that he may have known all along it was a hoax, it's like
the central 'alien autopsy' scenario in many respects.

Before dismissing all of Ray's claims and out of hand, there's
way too many unanswered questions.

>How were the hoaxers hoping their plan would hold water using TAPE
>only, there seems to be no mention of what they were planning when
>people started to ask "Where is the FILM".

I doubt Keith Bateman and Andy Price-Watts were thinking that
far ahead!

If they had been promoting the 'tent footage' as in effect a
'Roswell alien autopsy', which, as I suggested long time ago it
was actually supposed to be, it could be claimed the original
film was held by a 'collector', the 'cameraman', had been eaten
by the family's dog, etc.

No major problem in not providing any original 16mm film, as Ray
Santilli will tell you.

>Before anyone jumps down MY throat with "Well Ray Santilli has never
>produced any!", he DID produce "some" damaged film which WAS tested
>and found consistant with the film type alledgedly used and only in
>production by Kodak until the mid 1950's.

The possible dating of those samples, which were not original
film, remains debatable.

What isn't, is that the 'samples' did not contain any images
from the 'alien autopsy'.

>In all probibility the Tent Footage is a hoax AND it may well have
>been put together by the people behind the Mail's article BUT, the
>story THEY ARE TELLING seems to have serious problems too.

No question they produced the 'tent footage' and have explained
how part of it came to be on the 'Penetrating the web 2' video.
Even Ray admits they manufactured the footage.

I heard from Ray earlier today and he wasn't too thrilled about
the 'Mail on Sunday' article, maintaining that his account of
the 'tent footage' was true.

He noted that the article was picked up by the 'Daily Star'
newspaper today and I see that they published a still from the
'alien autopsy', claiming it was now proven that this was filmed
in a Bedfordshire barn.

He wasn't too pleased about that either and made the point:

"Heres one for you...if the AA film was a hoax imagine how angry
the makers would be seeing someone else trying to steal the

A fair point, although as I explained to him, it might be argued
that the presumed 'alien autopsy' hoaxers couldn't come forward
to claim the glory without considerable repercussions, not least
the long term financial benefits to Ray and associates and they
may all have reached an agreement where this simply won't

A truly bizarre affair.

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