From: "John W. Ratcliff"

To: JACK SARFATTI sarfatti@ix.netcom.com See also UFODREAM

THE CAMERAMAN'S STORY

EXACT TRANSCRIPTION OF TAPE RECORDED STATEMENT, NOTES ARE IN SQUARE BRACKETS [ ].

I joined the forces in March of 1942 and left in 1952. The ten years I spent serving my country were some of the best years of my life.

My father was in the movie business, which meant he had good knowledge about the workings of cameras and photography. For this reason I believe I passed a medical that would not normally allow me in, due to polio as a child.

After my enrollment and training, I was able to use my camera skills and became one of the few dedicated cameramen in the forces. I was sent to many places, and as it was war time, I fast learned the ability of filming under difficult circumstances.

I will not give more detail on my background; only to say that in the fall of 1944 I was assigned to Intelligence, reporting to the Assistant Chief of Air Staff. I was moved around depending on the assignment. During my time I filmed a great deal, including the tests at White Sands (Manhattan project/Trinity).

I remember very clearly receiving the call to go to White Sands (Roswell). I had not long returned from St. Louis where I had filmed the new ramjet ("Little Henry") [ According to official records, "Little Henry" was a helicopter project. This discrepancy is resolved by referring to Janes' All The World's Aircraft for 1949, which mentions that McDonnell, located in St. Louis, had a project at this time called J-1, which was a one-man ramjet powered helicopter, with a small ramjet engine on the tip of each rotor blade.] It was June 1st when McDonnell [George C. McDonnell was the first Air Force Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He was most likely Assistant Air Chief of Staff for Intelligence in June of 1947] asked me to report to General McMullen [Major General Clements M. McMullen, Deputy Commander of the Strategic Air Command in Washington] for a special assignment. I had had no experience working with General McMullen, but after talking with him for a few minutes I knew that I would never wish to be his enemy. MuMullen was straight to the point, no messing. I was ordered to a crash site just south-west of Socorro [ this could be the Plains of San Agustin]. It was urgent and my brief was to film everything in sight, not to leave the debris until it had been removed and I was to have access to all areas of the site. If the commander in charge [at the site] had a problem with that, I was told to get them to call McMullen. A few minutes after my orders from McMullen, I received the same instructions from "Tooey" [nickname for General Carl Spaatz, supposedly on vacation in Washington State at the time], saying it was the crash of a Russian spy plane. Two generals in one day, this job was important.

I flew out from Andrews with sixteen other officers and personnel, mostly medical. We arrived at Wright Patterson and collected more men and equipment. From there we flew to Roswell on a C54.

When we got to Roswell we were transported by road to the site. When we arrived the site had already been cordoned off. From the start it was plain to see this was no Russian spy plane. It was a large disc "flying saucer" on its back, with heat still radiating from the ground around it.

The commander on site handed over [command] to the SAC medical team who were still waiting for Kenney [General George C. Kenney was SAC Commander at the time. He was supposedly away on an inspection at the time.] to arrive. However, nothing had been done as everyone was just waiting for orders.

It was decided to wait until the heat subsided before moving in as fire was a significant risk. This was made all the worse by the screams of the Freak creatures that were lying by the vehicle. What in God's name they were no one could tell, but one thing's for sure, they were Circus Freaks, creatures with no business here. Each had hold of a box which they kept hold of in both arms close to their chests. They just lay there crying, holding the boxes. [This implies that all four creatures were still alive at this time.]

Once my tent had been set up, I started filming immediately; first the vehicle, then the site and debris. [The sun would not yet have been up, so this filming must have been done under artificial light.] At around 06:00, it was deemed safe to move in. Again, the Freaks were still crying and when approached they screamed even louder. They were protective of their boxes, but we managed to get one loose with a firm strike at the head of a Freak with the butt of a rifle.

The three Freaks were dragged away, and secured with rope and tape. The other one was already dead. The medical team were reluctant at first to go near these Freaks, but as some were injured, they had no choice. [Unless this is a mistake or poor choice of words, it means that only some of them were injured. ] Once the creatures were collected, the priority was to collect all debris that could be removed easily, as there was still a risk of fire. This debris seemed to come from exterior struts which were supporting a very small disc on the underside of the craft which must have snapped off when the disc flipped over. The debris was taken to tent stations for logging, then loaded onto trucks. [In verbal statements he mentions a truck full of ice into which the dead alien is placed. The trucks were heavy duty Diamond trucks used by the military.] After three days, a full team from Washington came down and the decision was taken to move the craft. Inside it the atmosphere was very heavy. It was impossible to stay in longer than a few seconds without feeling very sick. Therefore it was decided to analyze it back at base, so it was loaded onto a flattop and taken to Wright Patterson where I joined it.

I stayed at Wright Paterson for a further three weeks working on the debris. I was then told to report to Fort Worth(Dallas) for the filming of an autopsy. Normally I would not have a problem with this, but it was discovered that the Freaks may be a medical threat. Therefore I was required to wear the same protective suits as the doctors. It was impossible to handle the camera properly, loading and focusing was very difficult. In fact, against orders, I removed my suit during the filming. The first two autopsies took place in July 1947.

After filming I had several hundred reels. I separated problem reels which required special attention in processing. These I would do later. The first batch was [processed and] sent through to Washington, and I processed the remainder a few days later. Once the remaining reels had been processed, I contacted Washington to arrange collection of the final batch. Incredibly, they never came to collect or arrange transportation for them. I called many times and then just gave up. The footage has remained with me ever since. [This may not be as incredible as it seems. At this time the Army and the Air Force were being separated into two new agencies, and there was much confusion as "turf" was sorted out.]

In May of 1949, I was asked to film the third autopsy. [ This amazing statement suggests that one of the aliens, probably the uninjured one, lived in "custody" for nearly two years. The cameraman did not have any of the film from this autopsy. ]

From: Clifford W. Shaw 71230.2431@compuserve.com

To start the ball rolling, here are a few hard-nosed questions for the GAO, asked in roughly the order they appear in the report. All page and paragraph references refer to the 7/28/95 GAO report attached to Congressman Schiff's press release, same date.

---------------------------------------------------- QUESTION:

Why is the GAO so concerned with air accident reports, when, by its own definition, the only records it sought excluded everything but crashed vehicles belonging to specific arms of the US military?

BACKGROUND:

The GAO report opens with the following lines:

"In 1947, Army regulations required that air accident reports be maintained permanently. We identified four air accidents reported by the Army Air Forces in New Mexico during July 1947. All of the accidents involved military aircraft and occurred after July 8, 1947--the date the RAAF public information first reported the crash . . . " (GAO Report, p.2, para 1)

The method by which this air accident information was obtained is explained in the next section of the GAO report, titled "Reporting Air Accidents". The concluding paragraph of this section begins:

"The Air Force Safety Agency is responsible for maintaining reports of air accidents. We examined its microfilm records to determine whether any air accidents had been reported in New Mexico during July 1947. We identified four air accidents during this time period." footnote2 (p.2, para 3)

Footnote 2 of the GAO report says (in very fine print): "These records do not include information regarding mishaps of air vehicles belonging to civilian or other government agencies. These records also do not include mishaps involving unmanned air vehicles such as remotely piloted aircraft, low-speed cruise missiles, and most balloons." (p.2, bottom of page)

This clearly excludes all flying disks, unless they are flown Army personnel or unmanned, which effectively insures that the document search will never encounter crashed vehicles not belonging to the Army Air Force, even if they are reported by another government agency! This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that Navy crashes are reported separately, presumably as "other government agencies," and are therefor not eligible for the Air Force Safety Agency list!

Enclosed within this package is an NTSC video taped copy of the alleged alien dissection footage being marketed by a British citizen a Mr. Ray Santilli.

Mr. Ray Santilli claims to have purchased this footage from a retired American military cameraman who filmed it on June 2, 1947. Mr Santilli claims that this footage depicts the dissection of a crashed UFO occupant, recovered by the US military in 1947.

I make no claims as to the validity of Mr. Ray Santilli's statements. However I consider his accusations of grave and serious importance. There is no question that the footage in this video is quite disturbing, and if it is not what Mr. Santilli reports, it represents serious criminal conduct.

However, preliminary research into the dating of the physical film stock indicates that the film was indeed shot and developed in 1947. Meanwhile a number of court certified pathologists have testified that this is indeed an actual autopsy on an (and I quote) "humanoid" body.

Since the entire subject of UFOs and aliens rests at the fringes of what is acceptable for mainstream media to report on, this film has received little public attention at this time. However, it is my opinion that the accusations of criminal activity implicit in this film deserve a serious investigation. The owner of this film is a Mr. Ray Santilli, a British citizen. It is his claim that this film is the product of the US military in 1947, and was stolen by the cameraman who filmed it. It is his assertion that the US military has conducted a cover-up of this event for almost 50 years, in violattion of the democratic principles of this nation.

I, of course, have no idea what the ultimate truth of these claims are. However, I do believe it is the responsibility of the independent media to research this story, and have available to it the film in question. Clearly if this film is as Mr. Ray Santilli claims it is, he cannot assert any copyright or ownership privileges of any kind. Moreover, if his claims are not true, then he is participating in an international hoax, of the most heinous proportions, quite possibly involving the desecration of the bodies of prepubescent deformed girls for profit, which might warrant even a murder investigation.

All in all these are serious charges.

Below please find a series of messages which I found posted on the Internet and other international information services regarding the preliminary research into this film.

So what is really on the film? According to Home Office's senior Forensic Pathologist Prof. Christopher Milroy, University of Sheffield, the being on the film is -as communicated to George Wingfield- "almost definitely a corpse and not a cleverly made dummy".

In his report for the Merlin Group he describes it as "a body human in appearance and appeared to be female but without secondary sexual characteristics... the head was disproportionally large. No head hair was present ... a humanoid body" of "dysmorphic" shape. On the other hand Prof. Milroy admits "although a close up of the brain was shown it was again out of focus. However the appearances were not those of a human brain."

The "Observer" (July 23rd, 1995) quotes two further experts, palaeontologist Chris Stringer of London's Natural History Museum: "The figures certainly looked human like, but equally were not human." and anatomist Dr. Paul O'Higgins of University College, London: "Yes, it has six fingers and a very large head, but both conditions afflict humans with chromosomal abnormalities. But just how the makers could have got two such similar corpses I do not know."

The former President of the National Association of Forensic Pathologists, a respected physician who has performed or supervised close to 40,000 autopsies:

"I cannot relate these structures to abdominal contexts. The liver, if it were the liver, should be over here to the right. I'm seeing a mass that I cannot readily explain, and I am having great difficulty in correlating this with any human body that I have seen. This is a structure that must be the brain, if it is a human being. It looks like no brain that I have ever seen whether its a brain filled with tumor, a brain that has been radiated, a brain that has been traumatized, and is hemoragic ..."

"They are either pathologists or they are surgeons who have done a fair number of autopsies."

"I would have to say, as difficult as it is for me to say it, as reluctant as I am to say it, that what I have seen here does not appear to be a human being. What is this? I would prefer to say for the time being that it is humanoid. I'm not going to say it is from a distant planet - what planet , I don't know, but I cannot say that it is a member of the human race as you and I know the human race."

"It doesn't seem to me that somebody has put together a gigantic spoof here. If they have, boy they're wasting their time engaging in some small rip-off like this, they should be in Hollywood making some fantastic films with Stephen Spielburg, or something."

[Dr. Cyril Wecht, past president of the National Association of Forensic Pathologists, now Chairman, Department of Pathology, St Francis General Hospital.]

To get very specific: is what we have here a non-human body or a cinematic special effect? Who's the world's leading authority on special effects?

Stan Winston:

"You see how uniform the blood is on the inside surface of the skin, and the amount of drippage down the side where it is uniformly wet on the inside? I mean, we never were able to do that."

"Nothing about this thing feels phony. If you came to me and said that you created this illusion, you'd be working here like that." "I don't know how they did this."

[Stan Winston, Academy Award winning creator of the special effects for Jurassic Park, Aliens(!), and many other realities.]

From: BOB SHELL 76750.2717@compuserve.com

You made the point in our conversation that a lot of people were asking who the hell I am. And rightly so, because I am not a member of the UFO community, and have not been actively involved in UFO research. So here I come out of the blue offering to help solve a very important core mystery of the UFO community. I've got some nerve.

Actually, I started out as a zoologist, and worked in that capacity at the Smithsonian institution. This was in the mid and late 60s. During this time I met, became friends with, and was heavily influenced by the late Ivan T. Sanderson, one of the most intrepid investigators of Fortean phenomena who ever lived. Ivan showed me how to open my mind to other possibilities about how the world worked. Also, while at the Smithsonian, I met Don Keyhoe who was operating NICAP out of an office on Connecticut Avenue in DC, just off DuPont Circle. Don was a weird old bird, who was always hinting that he knew a lot more than he could say. I spent a lot of interesting time in his library. But I never really got into the mainstream of UFO investigation, partly through lack of time, and partly through the stigma attached which would have been death to my job at the museum.

While at the Smithsonian, I also pursued my interest in technical photography, and as the years went by I became more interested in photography and less interested in pure science. Part of this was that I discovered that you could make a lot more money in photography, and it was a good way to meet "chicks" (as we said in those days).

Since 1972, I have made my living in photography, and have studied all aspects of photography, nowadays working heavily on digital imaging. I am writing a book right now provisionally titled Photography: Electronic Imaging for Rockport Press. This will be my fourteenth book on photographic topics when it is published next year. My most important research project to date was a detailed history of the Canon Camera Company, which was published in England last year by Hove Foto Books as Canon Compendium (ISBN 1-897802-04-8). This book has also been translated into German and published there by Verlag Laterna Magica in Munich. I have written detailed technical users manuals on several camera systems; Canon EOS (ISBN 0-906477-47-X), Mamiya ( ISBN 0-906477-76-3), Hasselblad (ISBN 0-906477-47-71), which have also been translated into German.

I have just completed the manuscripts this month for books called Canon Modern Classics (ISBN 1-883403-26-X) and Canon EOS-1 N (ISBN1-883403-15-4) to be published later this year. I will not list all of the other titles and ISBN numbers, suffice it to say that I am widely published and considered a technical expert in photography.

In addition to the books, my regular job is as Editor of Shutterbug, the world's third largest photo magazine. I am Technical Editor of PhotoPro magazine, Technical Editor of Outdoor & Nature Photography magazine, Technical Correspondent for Color Foto in Munich ( one of Germany's top two photo magazines), and have written for photo magzines and journals in England, Australia, India, Japan, South Africa, etc. etc.

I do free-lance photographic consulting, and am currently a consultant for two major Japanese camera companies, providing input on design. I have acted as a photographic technical consultant for the FBI, for intelligence agencies, and for private industry. I have been qualified as an expert witness on photographic interpretation in several federal court cases (the side I was on won every time!).

I do not claim to be an expert on motion picture photography. I have done my share of 16 mm filming, including one hour long documentary. My reason for offering to help in this matter was that it was obvious from the documents I saw that Ray Santilli was not going to the right people at Kodak. Over my many years working in the photo industry I have developed a good working relationship with many of the technical staff at Kodak in Rochester, and I knew just which channels to go to for information on 16 mm film dating.

That is what I have done, and all I have done, so far in this matter. As I have said, the edge markings which Ray has faxed to me have been identified by Kodak as positively coming from film manufactured in 1947. I have not been shown or sent any of the actual original film as yet, so I have not verified that the edge markings sent to me by Ray are identical to the ones on the film. I had hoped to make that determination in a face to face meeting with Ray next week in DC, but as of today he still has not gotten back to me with a day, place and time for the meeting. Since I leave for DC on Friday, I certainly hope he gets in touch soon.

Thanks for your suggestion to post all of this info. I hope it will allay the fears of some people that I am just some fringe crackpot who managed to sneak in here. I've got no reason to involve myself in this matter other than the simple one of wanting the truth to come out.

Best wishes,

Bob

Subj: FILM EVALUATION

From: BOB SHELL 76750.2717@compuserve.com

Hello all,

I have been hard at work on this film. I have now physically examined a section of the film, a section showing the "autopsy" room before the body was placed on the table, but clearly consistent with the later footage.

The film on which this was shot is Cine Kodak Super XX, a film type which was discontinued in 1956-57. Since the edge code could be 1927, 1947 or 1967, and this film was not manufactured in 1927 or 1967, this clearly leaves us with only 1947 as an option.

The image quality, lack of fog, and grain structure apparent in the film lead me to the conclusion that this film was exposed and processed while still quite fresh, which would be within a "window" of three or four years.

Based on this, I see no reason to doubt the cameraman's claim that this film was exposed in June and July of 1947, and processed "a few days later".

>From my own research on the physical characteristics of the film, I am willing to go on record as giving a 95% probability that the film is what the cameraman claims it to be. I am only hedging 5%, because I still want secondary chemical verification from Kodak based on the chemical "signature" of the film.

I do not put my name on a statement like this lighty, and it is only after very careful consideration, and detailed examination of the film, that I do so at this time.

Bob Shell

Permission to cross-post granted, so long as this is quoted in complete form and not altered in any way..

Fm: BOB SHELL 76750.2717@compuserve.com

This week I have been conducting interviews with people who have seen the "Roswell" footage, both here in the USA and in Europe, just to determine what is actually there and what is not.

To clarify, there are two "autopsy" films. Actually, these are not autopsies in any normal sense of the word, and ought to be called dissections. Only the "second" dissection has been shown to people in the USA, because the footage of the "first" dissection was sold some time ago to a Japanese buyer who is refusing to allow it to be used commercially.

People who have seen both dissection sequences say that they are generally similar in procedure, but that the first dissection is by far the better of the two since the camera does not go out of focus nearly as much in the closeups. The first dissection film is twelve minutes in length, but actual elapsed time for the procedure is close to two hours (based on the wall clock). The "surgeons" are wearing no protective gear, just standard white lab coats and surgical face masks. There is no story board, as had been claimed, but the name Detlev Bronk is clearly visible (according to one witness only) in a notebook in which one of the "surgeons" is writing.

The body in this dissection appears to be somewhat decomposed, but intact with no visible wounds, and with a flat belly. It is apparently female, but has no breasts, nipples, or navel. At one point in the procedure one of the "surgeons" pulls the legs open, examines the apparent sex organs, and inserts some sort of instrument into them. The reason for this is unclear, and the exact nature of the instrument can not be clearly seen.

After the external physical examination, the chest and abdominal cavity is opened with a T-shaped incision. There is no evidence of a sternum or ribs, but there is a well developed "collar bone" joined in the front. Once the skin has been pulled back on the chest, the "surgeons" remove the now-famous object, which has variously been described as a "crystal", a "mineral", and an " electronic apparatus". This is held up and examined, and clearly visible to the camera, although exactly what it is, other than that it is a rigid, solid, opaque object or organ, is unclear. Other points are as in the "second" dissection (the order in which they were done is far from clear. My opinion is that they have been reversed, but I am sticking here with the terminology used up to this point.)

In the "second" dissection, the procedure opens with the cameraman going around the table several times, filming the body from all angles. This body appears much fresher than the other one, and has no external signs of decomposition, but does have a greatly distended belly. There is a major wound in the right leg which has taken away a large mass of tissue down to the bone, and the right hand has been almost completely severed. The body appears to show considerable bruising.

The film footage of this dissection is eighteen minutes in length, but the elapsed time for the procedure based on the clock is one hour and forty minutes. In both dissections the "surgeons" appear to be working against some sort of time limit, perhaps due to radiation. There is a DANGER sign on the wall, but it probably refers to whatever was normally done in this room, and not to these dissections.There are three "surgeons" and the cameraman in the room, while a fourth man watches from behind glass. In spite of the glass, this man wears a surgical mask (to hide his identity?). The three "surgeons" are wearing full-body protective suits with darkened faceplates, so that their faces are never seen.

It is probable that the procedure followed is identical to that in the other dissection, but this can not be determined with certainty as major portions of the film record of both dissections are missing, so we are only seeing brief segments of a long procedure. After a physical examination probably similar to the first one, one of the "surgeons" moves to the head, stretches the eyelids open with one hand and uses a pair of tweezers to quickly and skillfully remove the dark eye covers. These appear to be semi rigid, somewhat like the soft contact lenses used today. Under these eye covers are eyes which look like normal human eyes rolled upward in death, but much larger than human eyes.

A careful inspection is made of the hand. There are five fingers and a thumb, and appear to some viewers to have human-like fingernails, while others have been unable to detect any fingernails. However, the fingers are much more similar in length than in a human hand, and when curled in a relaxed manner they splay outward more than a human (some have said they point straight toward the wrist, not slanting toward the thumb as in a human hand). Detailed examination of the feet, if done, is missing, unfortunately.

Incisions are then made along both sides of the neck, and these incisions bleed freely, giving the impression that this is a very fresh corpse. Once the neck skin has been removed, the two large muscles are revealed. It is odd that Dr. Milroy refers to them as "cylindrical structures" rather than muscles, so they may not have the appearance of normal muscle. None of the people I interviewed is a medical doctor or biologist, and so did not notice anything odd about these muscles.

The chest and abdomen are then opened, as in the first dissection. The removal of the "crystal" is shown only very briefly and completely out of focus, so is easily missed by those who have not seen the first dissection and know what to look for.

Organs are removed and put into trays, presumably for detailed study later. Organs are dark, and due to poor focus not much detail can be made out. Abdominal organs are not seen as this portion of the film is missing. The skin is cut and rolled back from the scalp, and the skull is sawed open. The bone appears to be much thicker and tougher than a human skull, and the "surgeon" has a tough time cutting through it, having to take several rest pauses. Once the skullcap has been removed, dark membranes are revealed covering the brain. These are cut away and the brain is removed. The brain is dark in color, not pale like a human or animal brain, and shows no gyri (grooves), and no separation of hemispheres. It does not appear to be a human brain.

There is an old-fashioned studio microphone hanging down in the room where the dissections are done, and the "surgeon" frequently makes comments into it. Whether this is linked to a recording device of some sort or is simply a means of communicating with the man behind the glass is unclear.

For unknown reasons, American viewers have only been shown a two minute loop of film from the tent footage. According to European viewers, the full sequence is at least fifteen minutes long. It shows another body stretched out on a table or crate, and partially covered by a blanket. Several people are clearly visible working around the body, but showing care not to actually touch it.

Some have said that it appears that they are applying a dressing to a wound on the creature's side, which would imply that it is still alive, but there are no signs of breathing or other movement in the body. This sequnce is poorly lighted with emergency lanterns, and this would imply that it is an early sequence shot just after the recovery of the body. This body has a flat abdomen, and so far as can be observed is similar to the other two, although apparently taller. One estimate is about six feet six inches, while the other two bodies are estimated at about five feet four inches. Because of the blanket covering, it is impossible to tell if this body has apparent female genitals like the other two.

The last sequence, about seven minutes in length, shows pieces of wreckage on a couple of tables. A man, apparently in uniform, whose face is not seen picks up pieces of material and turns to various angles for the camera. Among the material is sections of I-beams, or more accurately H-beams. Along one of the flat sides of the verticals of the H, there is a half-cylindrical ridge which runs the length of the beam. Along one side of the flat horizontal surface of the H is what had been described as looking like ancient Greek writing. The letters appear to be part of the metal, and are raised. They are not recessed or painted on.

Several metal panels about 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick are shown, and melted along parts of the edge, as from great heat. Two "control panels" are shown, each with imprints for two six-fingered hands. There is a triangle of raised nubs where the wrist would be, and additional nubs where the finger tips would rest. On viewer said these did not appear to be buttons which could be pressed, but simply raised places in the metal. One of the "control panels" is broken as though fractured, and hundreds of tiny "wires" protrude from the edges of the break.

This is all preliminary information, of course, based on viewing of video made from the various film segments. Later detailed analysis may lead to different conclusions about many of the points contained herein. This is a summary of what people have so far seen. Any innaccuracies are my fault, as this is a composite from several verbal descriptions. I will be happy to attempt to get answers to specific important questions if possible.

Bob Shell

From: BOB SHELL 76750.2717@compuserve.com

According to Roger Mead, Archivist at the Los Alamos National Library, the following persons were the only photographers (still and motion picture) at Trinity Site on July 16, 1945:

Berlyn Brixner

Jack Aeby

Ben Benjamin

Roger White

Of these, Brixner and Benjamin are still living, but neither lives in Florida. All of them were civilian photographers, not military. If there were military photographers also on site, they are not on record. Of course this could mean anything.

The autopsy cameraman is not any of these people. I am researching all of -this, but trying to do it quietly and behind the scenes.

Bob

From: BOB SHELL 76750.2717@compuserve.com

Sorry. I posted this in detail some time ago and you must have missed it.

I don't have a listing of what is on each roll.

The first autopsy is twelve minutes long, conducted in the same room as the one you saw, but the doctors are only wearing surgical masks and gloves. No full body armor. A storyboard saying "Autopsy performed by Dr. Detlev Bronk" is claimed to be shown at the beginning by some, not seen by others. I have discussed this in great detail with two good witnesses who have seen it. Video of it does exist, and I am sure it will come out eventually.

The second autopsy, which you saw parts of on FOX, is 18 minutes in length. Appears to be similar in technique to the first one, but not as clear because the cameraman could not refocus for closeups as he had done in the first autopsy. He says that between the autopsies it was discovered that the freaks were a medical hazard, thus the suits.

The tent footage. What FOX has is a two minute loop from the beginning of this. There is either fourteen minutes more, or the total length is fourteen minutes, not totally clear on that. Later the image is much better and faces of people working on the alien, as well as the alien itself, are clearly visible. It is difficult or impossible to tell fromwatching just what is being done, but the cameraman says the space suit is being removed. Other observers have thought they saw skin being removed, intestines unwound, a wound being bandaged, etc.

The debris footage. Something like three minutes total, of I-beams, panels, and the three "boxes" with hand imprints on them.

There is a lot of other film, but much of it appears to have no obvious relationship to the above, and much of it is just black or black with white blobs moving around. MAYBE something can be done with some of this to digitally enhance it.

So far as I know right now, that's all there is except for several rolls that are stuck together, including the cryptic "Truman" roll.

Bob

Saturday 19th August. Bufora Conference held at the Pennine Theatre, Hallam University, Sheffield. THE ROSWELL FOOTAGE.

I can see the severed hand, the wound in the armpit, unable to see it any clearer than the GIF's, ther was no movement of the limbs that would help to identify it as a real body and not a latex dummy, the right leg looks like it is slightly twisted, perhaps broken below the knee, giving it a twisted look. The only close-up of the hands is of the palms.

The surgeon is moving the head slowly from side to side, he then manipulated the right leg, bending it very slightly at the knee, but not enough to tell if it moves like a real knee.

He made signs as if saying where he was going to make incisions down the body, his fingers pressing slighly into the skin, it seems to give just like real flesh.

He made some cuts with a scalpel from behind the ear down to the neck/shoulder area, some dark fluid seeps from the incision.

A cut is made all the way down the centre of the body, the flesh reacts just like human flesh would. He peeled the skin back from the chest, and I get the impression that there may be ribs, although I'm still not sure, there seemed to be large organs, difficult with the lack of focus, it was difficult to tell if it was a ribcage or lung(?) tissue. It then jumps to another reel, and it looks like they have already removed the ribcage and sternum, it looks like a large cavity now.

They are now cutting into the various organs of the internal body.

A crystal-like structure was cut out and removed from the area of what would be the heart (in a human body).

The note book was visible briefly, unable to discern the writing, (Ray said afterwards that NASA now have a copy of this section of the film, and they say that using their own enhancement techniques they may be able to work out what is written on the notepad).

A person on the other side of the window is visible, wearing a surgeons cap and mask, not a full headgear like the surgeons. When the knife is applied to the flesh it seems to react just like real skin/flesh would, the head is cut open the flesh peeled back to expose the scalp,the sawing of the skull, removal of some brain tissue.

Total time for this section of autopsy: 17 minutes.

Next shows a film showing a scene of the two plates with the hand "impressions" on them.

I-beams with the symbols on them. a better description would be H-beams, with the glyphs embossed on the inside, the glyphs are very clear and precise, lots of wreckage displayed on a table, both "hand" plates, a third one seems to have been broken in half.

The I beams are broken at exactly the same point as shown in the GIF's, the material looks like polished alloy, (imagine the smooth surface of a large blob of solder splashed onto a smooth surface), the broken end is shown and looks like a brittle broken surface, not a clean cut but a fractured surface but not stretched, the I beam is about 3-4 inches across the top/bottom section, 3-4 inches high, with the middle section about half inch thick. A tag tied on with a bit of string was momentarily visible, I caught the figures "W12-----", not shown long enough to see anymore. The focus on this section of film was very good, even when filmed close up, it clearly showed the fractured end of the I-beam.

Total time of this wreckage footage: 3 minutes.

During the Q&A session afterwards, a question was asked about Truman.

Ray Santilli. "When we found the cannisters of film, we had Truman listed on one of the cannisters, unfortunately we were unable to retrieve an image from that cannister"

Another question was asked about the notepad visible in the film.

Ray Santilli. "NASA are analysing the film and they are refocusing the out of focus shotsof all the reflective surfaces (difficult to make out exactly what he says here as my mike cannot pick him up clearly at this distance) they will probably be able to enhance it to such a degree that they will get the information from that document (the notepad in the film)"

Q. "Why was it that if this guy was such a bad cameraman that the actual pictures of the wreckage tended to be in focus, yet the pictures of the autopsy rarely were?"

Ray Santilli. "It's a technical question and I can't really answer that apart from to say that the camera was fixed focus and I suppose after you move in a certain distance then the camera can't handle that, but then that's why NASA had the film, thats why when they said they are able to refocus the out of focus shots we will be able to analyse (interuption here from someone in the audience)----I don't know why, I'm not able to judge the distance, I don't know, your opinion is probably more valid than mine"

Philip Mantle. "I can partially answer the question, when I spoke to John Purdie, who is making the Channel 4 documentary on Roswell, he's been involved with cameras all his life, he says compared to some of the camera crews he's worked with back in his early days, that wasn't bad."

Ray Santilli. "The cameraman has no interest in the subject of UFO's, he's just a bog-standard middle-American guy and what happened was that he seperated 22 problem reels, reels that had exposure problems or there were technical problems with the film (unclear here), he sent the first batch back to Washington, and he worked on the remainder of the 22 and when they were ready to return he called Washington numerous times to pick them up but they didn't, at that same timethe Army and the Air-Force were splitting, and there was confusion as to who was reporting to who, and it was just red-tape, he tried to get the film to go back and Washington didn't pick it up, and he just kept it for his own archives."

According to Ray, the pathologists who have seen the same footage believe the body was living about 2 hours before the autopsy.

After the Q&A session I spoke to Ray and asked him about the section that has been sold to raise funds. Ray confirmed that part of the footage has been sold to another collector, he didn't say who, when I asked him if he was putting that section onto the video that is for sale his answer was "We are still negotiating this now."

Today (Sunday) I have looked through many UK papers to find anything on this showing, the only paper to have anything was "The News of the World" Sunday magazine section ( this is not one of the better papers), it contained pictures of some of the wreckage. I will scan these pictures and upload them in the MUFON section.

Mick Sparham, Notts. 20/08/95.

QUESTION:

Why were records of INCOMING messages not examined, especially in light of the discovery that all outgoing messages from Oct 1946 through Dec 1946 had been illegally destroyed? Messages incoming to RAAF (Roswell Army Air Field) might have contained instructions on how to handle the developing incident, what to say to the press, disposition of the crash remains, and so-on.

BACKGROUND:

In Section 3, "Search for Records", the GAO report states:

"In addition to unit history reports, we also searched for other government records on the Roswell crash. In this regard, the Chief Archivist for the National Personnel Records Center provided us with documentation indicating that (1) RAAF records such as finance and accounting, supplies, buildings and grounds, and other general administrative matters from March 1945 through December 1949 and (2) RAAF outgoing messages from October 1946 through December 1949 were destroyed. According to this official, the document disposition form did not properly indicate the authority under which the disposal action was taken." (p.3, para 3) (The paragraph goes on to say that this may have been a frequent occurrence, and not peculiar to Roswell, for records maintained during this period.)

This section rewards careful reading. The GAO should have immediately challenged the Chief Archivist, saying something like: 'You tell us there are two classes of documents you don't have and only one document you do have (the Combined History for the 509th Bomb Group and RAAF for July, 1947). Why didn't you tell us what your archive actually HAS on Roswell? Do you have records of INCOMING message traffic, for example?' If no further documentation can be found, then we must conclude that with the exception of the combined history - which clearly contains disinformation about the crash (see below) - every single piece of paper relating to the Roswell Army Air Base for some months or years in the late nineteen-forties is missing from the National Personnel Records Center.

One useful morsel from the unit history is the classic quote: "The object turned out to be a radar tracking balloon." Even the GAO has admitted this is wrong, suggesting that the object was instead a huge Project Mogul balloon train (which would explain the heightened security surrounding the event.) If the GAO's Mogul explanation is to be believed, then the commanding officer of the RAAF, who signed the unit history report, was actively engaging in disinformation. Further, since the history of the 509th Bomb Group was classified, this disinformation had as its immediate target not the general public, but elements of the military itself.

QUESTION:

Why were there no records found whatever, not even a unit history, for RAAF base security?

BACKGROUND:

"We could not locate any documentation indicating that records of the 1395th Military Police Company (Aviation) were ever retired to the National Personnel Records Center or its predecessor depositories." (p.3, para 5)

The military police play a prominent role in the stories told by Congressman Schiff's constituents, on whose behalf the investigation was initiated.

The missing records are presumably from base security; does this mean that we cannot even determine the names of the security personnel who were stationed there, let alone information about their activities, in July of 1947?

Where are the missing FBI files?

BACKGROUND:

(Excerpts from FBI Message are capitalized, as they appear in the message. Incorrect spelling is maintained.)

"[ D e l e t e d ] HEADQUARTERS EIGHTH AIR FORCE, TELEPHONICALLY ADVISED THIS OFFICE THAT AN OBJECT PURPORTING TO BE A FLYING DISC WAS RECOVERED NEAR ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO, THIS DATE. THE DISC IS HEXAGONAL IN SHAPE AND WAS SUSPENDED FROM A BALLON BY CABLE, WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY FEET IN DIAMETER. [ D e l e t e d ] FURTHER ADVISED THAT THE OBJECT FOUND RESEMBLES A HIGH ALTITUDE WEATHER BALLOON WITH A RADAR REFLECTOR, BUT THAT TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN THEIR OFFICE AND WRIGHT FIELD HAD NOT BORNE OUT THIS BELIEF. (p.14, Appendix II, "FBI Teletype Message Dated July 8, 1947")

This message was sent by the FBI office in Dallas, Texas to FBI headquarters and to the FBI office in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Cincinnati, Ohio office was an obvious choice, since Wright Field, ultimate destination of the crash remains, is also located in Ohio.

The GAO report misrepresents the most important parts of the message. Here is what the GAO report claims the message says:

"According to the message, an Eighth Air Force headquarters official had telephonically informed the FBI's Dallas office of the recovery near Roswell of a hexagonal-shaped disc suspended from a large balloon by cable. The message further stated that the disc and balloon were being sent to Wright Field (now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio) for examination. According to the Eighth Air Force official, the recovered object resembled a high-altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector. The message stated that no further investigation by the FBI was being conducted." (p.4, para 5)

To repeat, what the message actually says is : " [ D e l e t e d ] FURTHER ADVISED THAT THE OBJECT FOUND RESEMBLES A HIGH ALTITUDE WEATHER BALLOON WITH A RADAR REFLECTOR, BUT THAT TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN THEIR OFFICE AND WRIGHT FIELD HAD NOT BORNE OUT THIS BELIEF. (P14, Appendix II, "FBI Teletype Message Dated July 8, 1947")

The GAO report does not mention Wright Field's difference of opinion concerning the identity of the crash remains.

Even curiouser, The GAO report makes no comment on the final lines of the FBI message, which read:

" [ D e l e t e d ] ADVISED WOULD REQUEST WRIGHT FIELD TO ADVISE CINCINNATI OFFICE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED."

In this excerpt, Headquarters, Eighth Air Force has advised the FBI in Dallas that it would ask Wright Field to tell the FBI's local office (in Cincinnati) the results of its examination of the crashed unknown.

To GAO's credit, they did review microfilm abstracts of FBI records for July, 1947:

"To Follow up on the July 8th message, we reviewed microfilm abstracts of the FBI Dallas and Cincinnati office activities for July 1947. An abstract prepared by the FBI Dallas office on July 12, 1947, summarized the particulars of the July 8th message. There was no mention in the Cincinnati office abstracts of the crash or recovery of an airborne object near Roswell." (Para 1, Page 5.)

How could there be no mention of Roswell in the microfilm abstracts of the FBI office in Cincinnati? At minimum, there should have been a copy of the original message from the Dallas office.

The Dallas message also describes a second message that should have been found in the Cincinnati record: the follow-up report from Headquarters, Eighth Air Force. It is possible that Headquarters, Eighth Air Force never sent the results of their examination of the crash debris to Cincinnati, but unlikely, since, according to the routing on the GAO's own copy of the message, the FBI in Dallas was informed by Wright Field that it would "ADVISE CINCINNATI OFFICE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION."

The most likely conclusion is that at least two documents are probably missing from the microfilm abstracts of the FBI's Cincinnati office. Where I come from, messages are numbered and logged. Was the Cincinnati office selective about what documents would be logged? Either that, or the logs and messages had to have been forged at some later time to remove all references to Roswell. It is my understanding that the FBI of 1947 was no slipshod organization given to losing classified messages - so what happened to the missing document(s)?

Why didn't the GAO question the absence of Roswell references in the microfilm abstracts from Cincinnati?

According to the message routing, FBI Headquarters in Washington also received a copy of the message. This was not investigated by the GAO.

QUESTION:

What records from Wright Field and the Air Material Command were actually reviewed by the GAO? Why were records limited to military regulations and evidence of command personnel involvement, as opposed to message traffic, cargo records, VIP visitor reports, security activities, and so-on?

BACKGROUND: "Because the FBI message reported that debris from the Roswell crash was being transported to Wright Field for examination, we attempted to determine whether military regulations existed for handling such debris. We were unable to locate any applicable regulation. As a final step, we reviewed Air Materiel Command (Wright Field) records from 1947 to 1950 for evidence of command personnel involvement in this matter. We found no records mentioning the Roswell crash or the examination by Air Materiel Command personnel of any debris recovered from the crash."(p.5, para 2)

The GAO is looking for records relating to crash debris at Wright Field, but stops when it can't find a military regulation for handling such debris. But they look just one other place: as the "final step" in their investigations of Wright Field, the GAO looks for evidence of "command involvement in this matter", and finds nothing.

If the GAO really wants evidence of "command involvement" at Wright Field, they need look no further than the public record. On July 7, 1947, General Nathan F.Twining, commander of the Air Materiel Command (Wright Field) suddenly and unexpectedly flew to Alamogordo, not far from Roswell Army Air Field. In a much discussed SECRET letter dated September 23, 1947, to Brigadier General Schulgen, General Twining concluded that flying disks were "something real and not visionary or fictitious." This letter eventually resulted in the formation of Project Sign. (Letter to BG George Schulgen, 23 Sep 1947. See Ruppelt, _The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects_. NY: Ace Books, 1956, p26, and _UFO Crash at Roswell_. NY: Avon Books, Randle & Schmitt, 1991, pp 108 and 238).

I believe this to be firm evidence of "command involvement" at Wright Field. It should be investigated further by the GAO

A FEW COMMENTS:

In my opinion, the GAO's latest report to Congressman Schiff fails completely as an investigation. I know it is easy to conclude that the GAO did not treat the investigation seriously, that it opted instead to harmlessly deflect the irrational questions of a lunatic fringe as politely as possible - a brush-off as opposed to a cover-up. But even as a brush-off, the report works too hard to display all the trappings of an unbiased inquiry, while in fact going to extraordinary lengths to avoid asking the right questions.

Whether the GAO report is some form of subtle bureaucratic humor or prima facie evidence of a deliberate attempt to suppress information, I'll let history decide.

In the meantime, the GAO is the hand we've been dealt, so we might as well try to make the best of it.

If Congressman Schiff asked you for a list of questions to the GAO, what would you ask?

Can you offer any firm leads that might help uncover what actually happened in the American Southwest, and ultimately at Roswell in 1947?

If you want to add to this thread, remember to relinquish copyright so that your comments can be shared with others. THE AUTHOR HEREBY RELEASES ALL OF THE ABOVE MATERIAL, WHICH MAY BE REPRODUCED WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION, INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Clifford W. Shaw

This article contains copyrighted material that has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. MCF is offering this article available to our readers for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research. We believe that our use of this material falls under the "fair use" provision of Title 17, Section 107 of the United States Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes other than that provided by law, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Read our Disclaimer

Home

Archives

News

Resources

Search

Victims