Area : META_UFO

Date : Nov 23 '95, 00:14                                                       
From : John Powell                                            1:261/1201
To   : All                                 
Subj : Santilli Busted?                                                      
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Santilli Film:  Should Alien DORA really be Alien HILDA ?
---------------------------------------------------------
GW Bulletin 12.                           November 22nd 1995

Over the last two months the Santilli alien autopsy saga has
rapidly declined into farce.  Nevertheless there still seems
to be an enormous appetite for it, especially out there in
cyberspace:  the subject provides an unceasing source of
fascination, although few now dare to hope that we are dealing
with a real alien, and it seems that what we are left with is
simply an overblown whodunnit.

It is now six months since the first public screening of the
alien autopsy footage.  At the time I bestowed the name "DORA"
on the wretched alien: this stands for Dubious Origin Roswell
Alien. (It was also appropriate since my erstwhile mother-in-
law was called DORA and many had the distinct impression that
she was an alien.)  Now, however, I believe that the name
"HILDA" is more appropriate and, if you will bear with me, I
will attempt to explain why.

I have been pressed several times to reveal what I really think
about the footage and whether I consider it genuine or not. 
Until now I have avoided that question in the hopes of
obtaining access to further footage, inside information and
perhaps even contact with the mysterious "cameraman".  That was
obviously not to be.  What I do believe is that the whole
production is a scam and most probably one that was conceived
in 1993 and carried out during the year 1994.  If I am not
mistaken there were several people involved in this project
which was devised and executed in London.  Most likely the
footage was shot on video and there never was any "original 16
mm" cine film.  I suggest that the US telephone and clock in
the "autopsy room" were carefully chosen by the perpetrators
to match the supposed 1947 scenario.  Likewise, the surgical
instruments were selected as the correct sort for that era. 
Despite much that has been suggested to the contrary by many
people, including medical men, the alien corpse is most likely
a special effects dummy.

Reasons for extreme doubt
-------------------------

What reasons are there for thinking that the footage is bogus? 
Primarily there is the fact that Mr Santilli has told us things
which are demonstrably untrue.  He has changed his story again
and again and, more recently, he has been caught out (on French
TV) in a gross falsehood as regards his original story of how
he supposedly obtained the footage. I don't intend to enumerate
all the discrepancies in the story --which is now falling apart
at the seams-- but a few instances will illustrate this.

1) We were told that President Truman could be clearly seen in
the footage.  Quoting Colin Andrews in his newsletter (March
1995), he says: "I asked Santilli what was the most impressive
thing he had seen on the film.  What had convinced him that it
was authentic ?  -- 'I had no doubts', he said, 'when I saw
President Truman'."  No film of Truman has ever been produced
and nor will it be.

2) Reg Presley and Philip Mantle were told separately that the
footage showed the debris site in the desert, the crashed disk
and a crane used to recover it, as well as many military
personnel.  None of this footage was ever produced.

3) In the same newsletter as (1) above, Santilli is reported
as saying that "the prestigious Royal Society in London had
agreed to assist with their high-tech. computer enhancement
facility".  Bob Shell was told that Rank in London had carried
out the processing needed to copy the original 16 mm film. 
Santilli also said that the processing was done in the U.S. 
Checks indicate that none of these claims are true.

4) On French Television's Jacques Pradel show on the TF-1
network on October 23rd Santilli was confronted with the fact
that the early Elvis footage which he claimed he purchased from
the mysterious "cameraman" in Cleveland had in fact been bought
from one Bill Randle.  Randle had helped promote concerts in
Ohio including one in 1955 where Elvis shared the billing with
Bill Haley and Pat Boone.  However the cameraman who shot the
actual footage, which Randle sold to Santilli (accompanied at
that time by Gary Shoefield), was a certain Jack Barnett who
had died in 1957.  Santilli was obviously highly embarrassed
by this revelation but sought to maintain there was another
cameraman, called Jack Barrett, who had also sold him Elvis
footage in Cleveland at this time and subsequently sold him the
"Roswell" footage.  Others on the Jacques Pradel show shook
their heads in disbelief at this hasty attempt to shore up an
obviously false story.

5) Santilli maintains that at the time of his purchase of the
Elvis footage (completed after a long negotiation process on
July 4 1993), he had never heard of the Roswell incident. There
is every indication that as a result of pre-release information
about the "Roswell" movie in 1993, he knew only too well about
the story of the recovery of alien bodies at Roswell in 1947.

6) Then there is the unbelievable "cameraman's story" (see
Bulletin 10) to which volumes of objections could be written. 
The search for the "cameraman" has become something of a wild
goose chase and numerous dead-ends give the strong impression
that the cameraman is a fictitious composite character based
on the long-since dead Jack Barnett (see (4)) and plenty of
invention.  Some of the obscure military detail in the
cameraman's story, such as the reference to "Tooey" (General
Spaatz), may well have been provided by someone with a
connection to the US Intelligence establishment (such as Jim
Schnabel, to whom we shall refer later, maybe ?).  

6) Despite numerous requests for pieces of original film to
test by various interested parties, like Bob Shell and FOX,
Santilli has only ever sent 16 mm leaders or small snippets of
film for testing which have no definite connection with the
autopsy sequence.  As one would expect, these pieces of film
all come from 1947 or roughly that era, as either the edge
markings or inspection indicates;  he would hardly send such
pieces of film if they were NOT about 1947 !  Pressed for a
whole section of film on which there are images of the supposed
alien, there have only been excuses, such as that he no longer
has control of the original film.  The frames showing a lighted
doorway, supposedly that of the autopsy room, could easily be
taken from any 16 mm film of that era such as footage of early
rock stars.  (The fact that some of the film strips received
are mutilated, with one edge missing, may show that it's even
quite tough to find a passable bit of film, such as the lighted
doorway, which is _exactly_ 1947!)

                    --------------------

We could continue with all sorts of other discrepancies and
objections but most of these have been covered already in other
Internet postings.  A more telling instance occurred during a
conversation which I had with Santilli on May 17th 1995, which
is reported here verbatim:-

GW: One very, very final point:  There was a group of circle
hoaxers, Robert Irving & Co., who were at the meeting [i.e. the
May 5th screening in the Museum of London] ... um..  are they
friends of yours ?  

RS: I've never heard of them.  Who are they?

GW: Never heard of Robert Irving, John Lundberg and, and er,
Rod Dickinson ?  

RS: Never heard of them, never heard of them  ... got no idea
who they are.

GW: They are hoaxers; they're prominent hoaxers who hoax UFOs,
hoax crop circles and all that sort of ...

RS: They were at our screening?

GW: They were at your screening, yes ...

RS: I've got no idea who they are.  Once again, no relationship
with them.  They've not even contacted me.

GW: Oh, ... OK.

RS: OK?

I now have evidence that Ray Santilli knew both Lundberg and
Dickinson and had done for some time.  Note the use of the word
"relationship" in his denial:  not a word that I ever used to
him but one that is extremely relevant, especially in view of
certain revelations which have occurred since then.

The Black Project
-----------------

In July 1995 an anonymous fax was received by someone who had
taken great interest in the Santilli footage. It was sent by
a person who worked for a major UK film distributor and who
expressed concern that their revelations in the fax could cost
them their job.  In fact the name of the sender is known to the
recipient of the fax but cannot, for obvious reasons, be
disclosed.

The fax said that the "Roswell" film footage was a hoax
conceived by Ray Santilli, Gary Shoefield and two others (one
of whom was said to be an Englishman called "Jack Barnett" or
"Jack Barrett" -- names that have also been attributed to the
alleged cameraman) associated with that particular film company
in July 1993.  The inspiration for this hoax was, of course,
the forthcoming release of the "Roswell" movie, starring Kyle
MacLachlan and Martin Sheen, which was to be released in the
US in 1994 and in Britain in 1995.      

The plan was known as the "Black Project" and it was apparently
considered to be a "guaranteed money making project".  Success
would depend on producing a realistic alien corpse which would
be the subject of an autopsy.  For this purpose, I understand,
according to the fax, two accomplished London model makers --
special effects artists-- were engaged.  Although not named in
the fax, there can be little doubt that the two referred to are
John Lundberg and Rod Dickinson, both of whom live in London
and are experienced in making foam latex dummies and puppets
for TV and theatre, as well as making medical prosthetics.

The fax itself could, of course, be a hoax but it did not seem
that way.  A copy of it was passed to the Serious Fraud Office
in Scotland Yard in case fraud was involved.  However fraud is
only committed where deception is directly used to relieve
people of their money and it seems that the police found no
grounds at the time for any specific charges.  Nevertheless,
the aforementioned film company sent a stiff solicitor's letter
to the original recipient of the fax threatening legal action
if any accusation was made against them or their name was made
public in this connection.

Special effects
---------------    

To the surprise of some, Irving, Lundberg and Dickinson were
present at the May 5th screening in the Museum of London and
sat together taking a great interest in the proceedings.  They
were not seen to approach Santilli though almost everyone else
present tried hard to speak with him in order to find out more
about the footage.  This trio were far more interested in
observing other peoples' reactions and, indeed, recorded some
impressions on tape including an interview with Philip Mantle.

Since that time Lundberg has written an article on the affair
in the Fortean Times and, together with Dickinson, written a
more recent article for UFO Magazine.  These articles fairly
present the case that there is nothing in the Santilli footage
that could not be rendered using contemporary special effects. 
They go into some detail to prove that the alien in the autopsy
could well have been made of foam latex, describe how a scalpel
cut on such a dummy can be made to dribble fake blood, and how
several aspects of the footage show that it could easily have
been produced on a modest budget.

In writing such sceptical articles dismissing the film footage,
which are undoubtedly sincere, the two have attempted to place
themselves beyond suspicion, so long as their association with
Santilli is not known.  This tactic has associated their names
with well known detractors of the film such as Kent Jeffrey,
Stanton Friedman, Jenny Randles, Graham Birdsall and Maurice
Chittenden.  Consequently who could ever believe for a moment
that, perhaps, they were the chief perpetrators of the hoax?

The background
--------------

This possibility simply does not become evident until one
examines the background of Irving, Lundberg and Dickinson as
hoaxers.   From 1992 onwards Robert Irving has been a leading
crop circle hoaxer and has in that time produced many complex
designs in the cropfields of southern England.  He has been
closely associated in this enterprise with Jim Schnabel, a
former employee of the CIA, who once worked for the DDI (Deputy
Director of Intelligence) at CIA headquarters in Virginia. 
Whether or not Schnabel's stay in England from around 1989/90
until 1993, ostensibly to pursue a Ph.D. course at Oxford
University and later at Bath, had any connection with his
previous line of business is a moot point.

Schnabel and Irving claimed that their circlefaking activities
were aimed at finding out who had been producing the circles
and pictograms in Wiltshire from 1988 onwards; many of these
have never been explained.  In fact their chief delight seemed
to be in deceiving crop circle and UFO groups researching the
--- FMail/386 1.02
 * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)

Area : META_UFO

Date : Nov 23 '95, 00:14                                                       
From : John Powell                                            1:261/1201
To   : All                                 
Subj : 2 Santilli Busted?                                                    
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

phenomenon and which were often engaged in watching the fields
and the skies at night.

Besides making many different crop formations, this pair next
took up launching hoax UFOs in the form of light-carrying or
luminous-painted balloons in the area of Alton Barnes (Wilts)
in order to fool the CSETI group and others who had organised
such watches in 1992 and 1993.

During 1992-1993 Irving and Schnabel met with John Lundberg
and Rod Dickinson both of whom had also taken up circlefaking.
A network of circlefakers evolved and the various teams often
met to plan and co-ordinate their activities.  These culminated
in 1994 in some highly elaborate designs the most dramatic of
which were made by Lundberg and Dickinson, occasionally
assisted by Irving.  An article by myself in the Winter 1993/4
issue of The Cerealogist, entitled "O, what a tangled web we
weave ...", exposed their activities and identified them as the
creators of several well known formations such as the Froxfield
Flower (August 4 1994), the Spider's Web at Avebury (August 10-
11 1995) and the large 1994 Scorpion designs, though of course
none of them admit to authorship of these circles or any other
particular formation.

Although Lundberg and Dickinson described themselves as
circlemakers or "crop artists", their circlefaking activities
were none the less illegal and involved considerable deception. 
Their compulsion to fake circles and UFOs was best illustrated
in an exhibition which they put on with some help from Jim
Schnabel at the Independent Art Space in London in February-
March 1994.  This included pictures of many of their crop
circle formations and also faked UFOs - "four anomalous
photographs of disk like objects" produced by Rod Dickinson. 
But their theme of 'the paranormal as art', and their unspoken
ideal of creating icons for the true believer, ran even to the
inclusion in the exhibition catalogue of two brief items on
cattle mutilations.  One, by John Lundberg and Bill Ellis, was
entitled "Altered Steaks" and the other was an extract from
Linda Howe's "An Alien Harvest", reproduced as a project for
IAS by John Lundberg. (I do not suggest in any way that either
has ever hoaxed cattle mutilations!)   Also in the exhibition
were 7ft by 7ft oil paintings of the alien head from the cover
of Whitley Strieber's book "Communion".

Alien HILDA
-----------

The logical progression from here was, obviously, to create an
alien.  Not just a model or a statue of an alien but one that
would be widely accepted as the real thing.  Certainly a model
- a special effects dummy - was required to do this but it had to
be filmed in such a way that people would believe that it was
genuine.  I suggest that is exactly what was done.  

For anyone who still doubts that it is possible to create a
convincing special effects dummy of this sort, I recommend that
they read "Alien Autopsy -- Faked or Fiction?" by The Truly
Dangerous Company.  This can be found on the WWW at URL:-

http://www.trudang.com/trudang/autopsy.html

To make your alien, first find two skilled special effects
artists, such as Messrs Lundberg and Dickinson.  Then you will
need a cameraman.  Maybe commercial photographer Robert Irving,
who is quite handy with a video camera, will do ..?

Next, follow the instructions (such as those given by the Truly
Dangerous Company).  After much hard work and a lot of video
filming, you will eventually have your alien autopsy footage. 
The alien is, of course, called HILDA, which, in case you
hadn't guessed, stands for Hoaxed Irving-Lundberg-Dickinson
Alien.

In this scenario - the "Roswell Film Footage" scam - the
motivation was there, the mentality was there, the timing was
right, and the perpetrators were exactly those who you would
have expected if you had known the background information. 
However, as with all the hoaxed crop circles which I claimed
they had made, one should anticipate nothing but denials from
these gentlemen. 

George Wingfield
..        
     

                      

                           





--- FMail/386 1.02
 * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)