UFO Reporter - Vol 4 No 3

Magazine Overview

Title: UFO Reporter
Issue: Volume 4, Number 3
Date: September 1995
Publisher: UFO Research (New South Wales)
Country: Australia
Type: Quarterly Publication of UFO Research

This issue of UFO Reporter delves into the controversial alleged Roswell autopsy film, examining its promotion, authenticity, and the skepticism surrounding it. It also features other UFO-related articles, news, and an obituary.

Editorial: The Roswell autopsy film: Mr Santilli, you must be joking!

The editorial, written by Bryan Dickeson, critically analyzes the televised broadcast of the alleged Roswell autopsy film in Australia. The program, aired on Channel 9, was a significant promotional event, attracting millions of viewers. However, the editorial highlights that most UFO researchers consider the film a hoax. Quest Publications International (UK), producers of UFO Magazine, lifted copyright restrictions to allow UFO Reporter to reproduce an article providing background on the film's release. The editorial notes that the broadcast was largely commentary, with only a small portion of the alleged autopsy footage shown. It also mentions a promotional video released by Mastervision in the UK, which was distributed to UFO groups. The article questions Santilli's reluctance to allow chemical testing of the film and points to internet resources that explain how such footage could be faked. The author concludes that the film is not genuine and that the entire business has dominated UFO investigations globally.

Features

• The alleged Roswell archives film (Page 7): Written by Graham W. Birdsall, this article details the emergence of a 70-minute archive film purportedly from the 1947 Roswell UFO crash. It discusses the initial media frenzy, with claims that Kodak had authenticated the film's age. However, it raises suspicions due to the lack of published analysis and the fact that key Roswell investigators like Stanton T. Friedman were not privy to the film's existence until much later. The article notes that Philip Mantle, Director of Investigations for BUFORA, had knowledge of the film prior to the Press Association's story. It also recounts Friedman's findings that the alleged cameraman, Jack Barnett, was difficult to locate and that President Truman was not in Texas during the relevant period in 1947, contradicting claims made in relation to the film. The article also addresses the alleged use of 'macrovision' technology to prevent copying and the promotional tie-ins with the movie 'Roswell'. It highlights that Kodak has denied authenticating the film.

• Classic disc seen at Five Dock (Page 22): This is a brief mention of a classic disc sighting over Five Dock.

• Star Wars over Australia? (Page 23): This article, by Stewart, poses a question about potential UFO activity or phenomena related to 'Star Wars' in Australia.

Also

• Editorial: The Roswell autopsy film: Mr Santilli, you must be joking! (Page 3): (Covered in the Editorial section above).

• The Autopsy Footage: More a case of Spielberg does the Hitler Diaries? (Page 5): This comment piece, by B.D., draws parallels between the promotion of the Roswell autopsy film and past commercial enterprises that have exploited the UFO subculture, likening it to the 'Spielberg Option'. It references Stephen Spielberg's 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and Whitley Strieber's book 'Communion' as examples of how UFO phenomena have been commercialized. The author criticizes the methods used to promote the Santilli film, suggesting it's a variation of a 'wheel and deal' scenario. The piece also touches upon the Hitler Diaries scam as an example of how such ventures can lead to legal trouble.

• Obituary: Maureen Kozicka (Page 6): This obituary honors Maureen Kozicka, who passed away in late September 1995. Her interest in the Min Min Light phenomenon led her to collect numerous accounts, which formed the basis of her research and her book 'The Mystery of the Min Min Light'. The obituary notes her empathetic nature, wide range of interests, and the appeal of her books.

• Kelly case update (Page 6): This update addresses inaccuracies found in a previous UFO Reporter article about the 'Kelly abduction case'. Researchers involved, including John Auchettl and Kelly herself, have notified the magazine of errors in the sequencing of events and details of the encounter. The update states that new accounts are expected from people directly involved, including Kelly preparing a script for publication and another car's occupants writing their own account. John Auchettl is also producing a redrafted investigator's report.

• Timeline of selected Roswell events, July 1947 (Page 12): This is a reference to a timeline of events related to the Roswell incident.

Roswell Statement

This section presents a document alleged to be a briefing prepared for President Elect Dwight D. Eisenhower by President Truman, concerning UFO sightings around US military establishments, particularly the 1947 Roswell crash. It suggests that while the true events may never be known, new evidence continues to surface. For further information, readers are directed to contact International Exploitation Management in London.

Roswell Autopsy Film Analysis (Pages 7-10)

These pages provide a detailed examination of the alleged Roswell autopsy film. Stanton T. Friedman is quoted extensively, expressing skepticism and stating he did not see the film and that Santilli admitted to being in it for the money. Friedman also confirmed that President Truman was not in Texas during the period claimed for the autopsy footage. The article highlights the lack of technical analysis and the unwillingness of those involved to seek expert opinions. It mentions that the film was allegedly sold by Jack Barnett, who was difficult to locate. The article also discusses the promotional tie-in with the movie 'Roswell' and the claim that the film's symbols indicate it is from 1947 or 1967, but Kodak denies any involvement. Matthew Williams and Chris Fowler of the South Wales UFO Group provide their interpretation of footage shown at the Museum of London, noting the presence of 'Majestic 12' documents and Santilli's explanation of how he obtained the film from a cameraman. They also mention Santilli's claim that analysis was pending.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of the alleged Roswell autopsy film and the surrounding media hype. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards the film's authenticity, emphasizing the need for rigorous investigation and questioning the motives behind its promotion. The magazine appears to advocate for a return to 'real business of investigating UFOs' rather than being sidetracked by potentially fabricated material. There is a clear emphasis on critical thinking and the importance of evidence-based research within the UFO community.

This issue of UFO Reporter (NSW) from September 1995 focuses on the controversial 'Roswell autopsy' film, presenting findings and raising significant doubts about its authenticity. The magazine details the screening of the film, the reactions of those present, and the subsequent investigations and challenges to its validity.

The Screening and Initial Reactions

The issue describes the author's experience at a screening of the purported alien autopsy film. The event, attended by around 100 people, began with a black screen and a textual statement before showing footage of a strange humanoid body on a table. The author notes the figure was not the typical 'Grey' alien but was large, fat, and tall, with an enlarged head and lower-set ears. Its eyes were black and featureless, and its mouth was partially open with no visible teeth. The body had no apparent body hair, and there was bruising or damage under the left cheekbone. Fingers and toes appeared stretched, but sinews were not visible. The thighs were large and tapered towards the knees, resembling human legs. The right leg showed significant 'damage,' possibly from burning or a predator, large enough to expose bone, though no bone was visible.

The cameraman repeatedly walked around the corpse, but poor focus made the image worse at closer distances. The film, presented in 3-minute segments, showed the autopsy process. The author notes the cameraman's style improved in later reels, but the focus remained an issue. The film flickered at its edges, consistent with 16mm film reels.

Pathologists and Procedures

The film then showed two individuals in radiation/covering suits with headpieces, whose eyes were not visible. The photography became steadier, but the cameraman continued to follow the pathologists in an overview style, often losing focus. A telephone with a 'curly' cord was visible on the wall, as was a viewing window. A clock on the wall initially showed 10.10, then 10.20 as the examination began. The first pathologist examined the alien's legs, noting a hairless vaginal entrance but not performing a larger examination. The arm and leg areas were explored with gentle movement.

A second incision was made from the neck down across the chest in a crescent fashion, followed by another across the lower stomach. The skin was folded back, revealing internal organs. The author noted the absence of internal membranes and a muscular wishbone structure instead of a rib cage. A distinct organ, possibly a heart or 'crystal,' was removed with ease and placed in a glass dish. The author was not impressed by the pathologist's actions, describing the process as 'ravaging' and 'uncinical.'

Examination of the Head and Brain

The film then cut to a scene showing 11.30 on the clock. The pathologist moved to the head area. Cuts were made around the back of the head, and the skull was peeled back to expose the bone. A stainless steel bone saw was used to cut through the skull, exposing the brain. The brain matter was described as soft, murky, and dark, not grey, and of a different consistency than human brain matter. The remnants were scooped out of the skull.

Bob Kiviat's Perspective and the Film's Saleability

Bob Kiviat, a producer with the Fox Network, was present and stated his interest was solely in how the film would perform on television. He indicated he was not concerned if the film was faked, as his task was to gauge its potential impact. He suggested the best way to release the film would be in a two-hour conspiracy and UFO program, with the footage shown around 9.20 pm.

Questions and Concerns

Following the screening, a crowd gathered around Ray Santilli and his publicist. Journalists asked about the source of the film, to which Santilli replied the source wished to remain anonymous. His publicist stated the person was 82 years old and did not want their details released. The author felt Santilli did not answer questions and that the publicist, referred to as 'Harry,' seemed to be giving orders.

Many attendees felt the footage was good but had a 'bad feeling' about it, recognizing the potential for disinformation and damage to ufology if the film proved to be a hoax. The lack of identifiable faces in the footage was noted as a weakness.

Friedman's Challenge and Santilli's Response

Stanton T. Friedman, a scientist investigating the Roswell story, sent a fax to Ray Santilli on May 3, 1995, challenging him to provide evidence to substantiate the film's claims. Friedman listed specific data required, including the film camera, film type, dating reports from Kodak, military discharge papers for the cameraman (JB), military orders, receipts for payments, and evidence of showings to religious leaders. He also questioned evidence of contact with the Truman Library and Truman's presence in Dallas in 1947, stating that Truman was not in Texas during that period.

Santilli's response, delivered the day before the London meeting, was dismissive: "None of the above is of interest to me."

Philip Mantle's Involvement and Analysis Proposals

Philip Mantle, the English representative for MUFON and Director of Investigations for BUFORA, had known about the film for 18 months but did not share this with Friedman until January 1995. Mantle proposed a series of requirements for the analysis of the film footage, including a complete copy for an historian to check its representativeness of 1947, serial numbers from all 14 rolls of film, documentation surrounding the film, and actual film analysis by two companies: Kodak (UK) and Hasan Shah Films.

Mantle requested that the film be hand-delivered and collected to avoid destructive testing. He also stressed the importance of speaking to the alleged photographer, JB, to verify the footage.

Further Doubts and Criticisms

The article notes that the 'curly' telephone cord, initially seen as an anomaly, was discovered to have been available in 1939. Kent Jeffrey of the International Roswell Initiative wrote a damning report on May 26, 1995, stating unequivocally that the film is a fraud. He highlighted the dubious nature of the film and its handling as having the potential to cause significant damage to the entire Roswell effort.

The 'Plot' Thickens and Other Organizations

The Merlin Group, associated with Ray Santilli, has its address listed as 40 Balcombe Street, London. Tentcrest Limited, trading as The Merlin Group, shares the same address. International Exploitation Management, which distributed flyers about MJ 12 and the film, also lists the same London address.

Chris Cary, identified as Santilli's 'agent,' was contacted by the BBC, but Santilli failed to respond to numerous messages. Cary was associated with 'Imagination Limited,' a company that produces props and scenery.

Clock Anomaly and Photographer's Technique

Many viewers noticed that the wall clock appeared too modern for 1947. More significantly, the clock face in the first pathology scene showed 10.10, even though the autopsy began around 10.20. This time of 10.10 is a common practice for photographers to set watch and clock faces to capture both hands, suggesting a staged element. Nick Pope of the Ministry of Defence is quoted as saying, "You can never prove it's genuine, but you can prove it's a hoax..."

Summary of Findings and Editorial Stance

The article concludes that the numerous flaws detected in the affair are sufficient to raise suspicion. It criticizes some prominent English ufologists for actively promoting Santilli and the film without regard for the consequences if it proves to be an elaborate hoax. The author expresses a commitment to further research to uncover the truth about the footage.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards sensational claims, the potential for disinformation within the UFO community, and the critical examination of evidence. The editorial stance is clearly one of deep skepticism regarding the Roswell autopsy film, emphasizing the need for verifiable proof and cautioning against accepting claims simply because they are well-packaged. The magazine actively seeks to expose potential hoaxes and protect the credibility of ufology.

Title: UFO Reporter
Issue Date: September 1995
Publisher: Keyword Editorial Services
Country: Australia
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of UFO Reporter delves into two significant UFO-related topics: the controversial Roswell autopsy film and a mysterious encounter involving the Discovery space shuttle over Australia.

Roswell Autopsy Controversy

The article begins by detailing an interaction between Italian researcher Corso Vittorio Emanuele and Philip Mantle, Director of Investigations for BUFORA and English representative for MUFON. Mantle obtained a statement regarding the Roswell autopsy, noting that the names Detlev Bronk (a physiologist with no medical degree, alleged to be part of MJ 12) and a Dr. Williams were visible on a notebook during the autopsy.

Stanton T. Friedman is cited, having previously written about Dr. Bronk's supposed role in the autopsy. Friedman expressed difficulty in believing Bronk, despite his scientific background, would have performed an autopsy without a medical degree. The article criticizes the denial of facts about the autopsy to the public and media, contrasting this with the efforts of researchers like Friedman who have investigated the Roswell crash extensively.

Don Berliner, another American researcher, offered his services to Santilli (presumably the source of the Roswell film) but received no reply. Philip Mantle, in a letter dated May 25, 1995, clarified that BUFORA has never promoted the Roswell film as genuine. He noted that global interest was generated by extraordinary claims and film clips, but an absence of analysis. Mantle questioned Santilli's motives and challenged him to provide the film for analysis, to appear at a BUFORA conference, and to show the entire archive sequence.

The article expresses regret that the affair has resembled a "comic opera" and asserts that people worldwide have a right to know the truth. BUFORA's investigation aims to uncover the truth, suggesting that ulterior motives of some individuals remain dubious. The magazine's opinion is that the 'archive footage' is simply not authentic.

Contributors to this section include Stanton T. Friedman, Tony Dodd, James Easton, Rodney Howarth, Kent Jeffrey, Corso Vittorio Emanuele, Matthew Williams, Chris Fowler, George Wingfield, "Nick" (BBC), Nick Pope, Kevin Randle, Paul Fuller, and Jenny Randles, along with other unnamed individuals. Credits are given to International UFO Reporter, published by CUFOS, and MUFON.

Classic Disc Seen at Five Dock

This section details a sighting by Mr. P. on Saturday, July 2, 1994, around 0900 hrs in Five Dock, Australia. While returning home from a night shift, Mr. P. heard a low whirring or humming sound. He observed an elliptical aircraft moving in a straight line from southwest to northeast, approximately 12 meters above the ground and about 65 km per hour. The object was described as about 6 meters across, with three bright hemispherical lights (blue, red, orange) on its underside, and made of a silvery metal. The object passed over his backyard in about 8-10 seconds and was visible for about three minutes before disappearing towards the Iron Cove Bridge.

Mr. P. initially thought others would have reported it but was surprised when no one else had mentioned the sighting. The object appeared to be man-made, with visible seams, and was not spinning.

Star Wars Over Australia?

This article, authored by G. Stewart, discusses a spectacular video footage of a UFO encounter taken by cameras on board the Discovery space shuttle on September 15, 1991. The video was monitored by amateurs and has been shown in news broadcasts.

Initially dismissed by skeptics as ice particles, UFO investigators, notably US scientist Dr. Richard Hoagland, argued that the objects were large and distant. The video shows a UFO emerging from below the Earth's dawn horizon, orbiting the Earth, and then rapidly accelerating into space after a bright flash. The article notes that the distance from the Discovery to Earth's horizon was 2757 km.

Calculations suggest the UFO's speed was 87,000 km per hour (Mach 73) before accelerating to 340,000 km per hour (Mach 285) within 2.2 seconds, a maneuver that would produce 14,000 G's of force.

Hoagland interprets the incident as a Star Wars weapons test against a Star Wars drone. The bright flash and light beams (or contrails) shooting into space are described as a ground-based attempt to disrupt or destroy the UFO.

More recent analysis from New Zealand has corrected the time of the sighting and determined it occurred over Australia, not the Philippines. The Discovery's trajectory placed it over West Australia when the UFO was first observed near Lake Carnegie. Later, a light flash and one contrail were tracked back to Exmouth Bay near a military facility, and a second contrail was tracked to the Pine Gap military facility near Alice Springs.

US investigators have sought information from Australian counterparts, but due to Australia's secrecy laws, much of the information comes from the US or New Zealand. The article suggests that the scenario was likely captured by chance and that such incidents have contributed to NASA's decision to discontinue live television transmissions from space.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO evidence, particularly the Roswell autopsy film and the Discovery space shuttle sighting. The magazine adopts a skeptical yet investigative stance, questioning the authenticity of claims and seeking verifiable evidence. There is a strong emphasis on the public's right to know and a distrust of individuals or organizations with potentially dubious motives. The editorial stance appears to be that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that many widely publicized UFO phenomena, such as the Roswell film, are likely not authentic.