MY STORY
by Ray Santilli
As a result of research into film material for a music documentary, I was in Cleveland, Ohio, USA in the summer of 1993. Whilst there I had identified some old film material taken by Universal News in the summer of 1955. As Universal News no longer existed, I needed to investigate the source of the film and was able to determine that the film had been shot by a then local freelance cameraman. He had been employed by Universal News because of a film union strike in the summer of 1955.
The cameraman was located, following which a very straight forward negotiation took place for his small piece of film, i.e.: cash for three minutes of film. Upon completion of this, the cameraman asked whether I would be interested in purchasing outright very valuable footage taken during his time in the [U.S. military] forces. He explained that the footage in question came from the Roswell crash, that it included debris and recovery footage, and, of most importance, autopsy footage. At this time I had no knowledge whatsoever of the Roswell event, but when someone tells you that they have real footage of an Alien autopsy, of course it is of interest.
The cameraman was in his eighties and seemed a genuine enough person; he explained that from 1942 to 1952 he worked as a cameraman for the Army Air Force and special forces, that during this time he was sent to many places and filmed many events including the tests that were part of the Manhattan Project (the testing of the first atomic bombs at White Sands, N.M.).
He explained that on June 2nd 1947 he received an order directly from General McMullen [then acting commander of SAC in Washington D.C. -- GW] stating that there had been a crash and he was to go immediately to White Sands and to film everything he could. He was instructed to stay with the material recovered until it was dispatched; further, he had authority over and above the on-site commander. The cameraman only reported to McMullen.
The cameraman flew to Roswell, then was taken by road to the site that he describes as being a dried up small lake bed.
After hearing the story I was taken to the cameraman's house and viewed the footage. The cameraman had only one reel of film that he was able to show on an old projector. He moved the projector over to a wall and projected the image on the wall itself.
The footage was and is quite incredible. From his house I telephoned Kodak to ask their advice in checking the film. I was given the codes which corresponded with the codes on the film. I quickly confirmed a cash offer subject to further checks and the cameraman accepted. I said I would require a few days and a sample of the film to take back. The cameraman gave me around two feet of leader from the film itself which I brought back to the UK.
Unfortunately raising the money needed became a problem and a few days turned into a few weeks, then a few months. This was made all the more difficult because the cameraman needed money for a family wedding. By now the cameraman was becoming very nervous and refused to take my calls. Each time I called, his wife would simply take a message. The story stops there until November of 1994 when with the money in hand I flew over without warning and tried; this time I succeeded.
My impression of the cameraman is that he is totally genuine, he is an ordinary person who never really made a great deal of money in his life, has been married to the same woman for over 50 years and seems as stable as you could wish. I had the opportunity of going through his many old photo albums, his film collection, and personal papers. I am certain that the cameraman was everything he claims.
I came away with 22 reels of film, 21 safety prints and one negative.
RAY SANTILLI
------------
Notes appended by George Wingfield, July 25, 1995.
(1) The film footage which Santilli originally sought and purchased in Cleveland, Ohio, was early film of Elvis Presley. This is not mentioned here.
(2) The cameraman's age was given to me by Santilli as 82. Reg Presley says that he was originally told 76. The above version puts him "in his eighties".
(3) If the cameraman received an order "to go immediately to White Sands," why did he fly to Roswell rather than to Holloman AFB at Alamogordo which is right next to White Sands?
(4) Santilli told me that the cameraman had said the crash site was "just outside an Apache Indian reservation." This could only be the Mescalero Apache Indian reservation -- a roughly rectangular area measuring approx 33 miles (E-W) by 25 miles (N-S), which is 55 miles WSW of Roswell. This is not mentioned.
(5) Santilli has said that he negotiated at first to acquire the footage for the film company Polygram but they dropped out since no formal contract with the cameraman was possible. Subsequently he got financial backing from Volker Spielberg and the film was eventually purchased for a reputed $100,000 in November 1994. None of this is mentioned here. (Nor the fact that Polygram marketed the 1994 movie 'Roswell' which was released in Britain in 1995).
(6) Testing of the film: As of July 25th 1995 we can be certain that Kodak have done no thorough testing of the original film. They may have been sent all or some of "the two feet of leader" referred to here but at no time have they examined any complete reel of positive or negative film bearing images. I have seen part of a 16mm leader which bears edge symbols indicating that it is of 1947 stock, but there is only Mr. Santilli's word to connect this with the actual footage. There are letters from Kodak in England, Kodak in Hollywood, and Kodak in Denmark, confirming this dating. (The first two Kodak locations say "1927, 1947 or 1967." The Kodak, Denmark, letter specifies only 1947, which is correct, since the square and triangle symbols are solid, not outline, and 1927 can be discounted.)
However, this is a far cry from detailed examination of any original film material, the existence of which critics may say is unproved. Philip Mantle, of BUFORA, has said, though, that he has handled one of the original film reels with images on it. Also, it is believed that Channel 4 TV, who are producing a major feature on Roswell and the Santilli footage, which is to be screened on August 28th, are currently conducting further tests on one actual reel of film. The August 28th documentary will appear on Channel 4 in Britain, on Fox-TV in the U.S., in Japan, and in France, Germany and Italy.
(7) Some inconsistencies: I spoke with Reg Presley on July 22nd and he says that Santilli definitely told him some months ago that President Truman was visible on some of the footage. Santilli told me in June that Truman does not appear anywhere in the footage. Reg also says that he was told at that time there were 14 or 15 canisters of film. This certainly does not correspond to the 22 canisters (or reels) which Santilli told me he had on June 5 and which he repeats in this account.
8) The Cameraman: Santilli has told Philip Mantle that the name "Jack Barnett" is merely a cover name. He has also deliberately misled people into thinking that "Barnett" lives in particular locations in the U.S. If the cameraman's identity has to be protected, this is to be expected, though it does not add credibility to the story.
The cameraman has telephoned Philip Mantle on one occasion, introducing himself as "Jack Barnett". However no further information came from this brief telephone call, though it probably emanated from the U.S. since a small time delay was apparent during the exchange. From an article in [the July 25th] Guardian (national) newspaper, it appears that Channel 4's John Purdie has also been in contact with "Jack Barnett:"
"We know the man who took the film, and even though he complains his life will be made a misery once he comes forward, we are hoping to persuade him to explain what happened on camera," John Purdie told The Guardian yesterday. "We are taking an objectively agnostic line."
(This very objective article by Martin Walker, entitled "Space Oddity," is most unusual for a British newspaper. In the past they have either ridiculed or ignored the UFO subject. Now the Santilli film, whether fact or fiction, has become mainstream news. The same article also quotes Congressman Schiff:
"If this is a hoax, it is a most elaborate and convincing and believable one," said Congressman Steven Schiff of New Mexico, as he sat and watched the films last month in his Washington office, with his staff and other government officials around him.)
Some sceptics maintain that the alien [in the film] is a cleverly constructed dummy, most probably made by experts during the last 5-10 years. This is possible, and it is possible that pathologists and public alike have been deceived into thinking this was a dead body, but such a scenario still poses many questions. Why should the makers make their model so human-like in many ways and quite unlike reports of aliens? If this turns out to be the case, the questions of who, when, where and why all have to be answered. Whether or not Santilli's alien is a dummy, the U.S. government surely has a whole lot of questions to answer.
George Wingfield
July 25, 1995
Original file name: .CNI - Wingfield.Santilli 8.95
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.