A couple of months after the British broadcast, in a live interview on the Seattle television program Town Meeting (November 10, 1995), Santilli was blatantly attempting to convey the false impression that original film (with suitable images) from the alien autopsy footage had been submitted worldwide. On the program he stated, Film with image and not leader tape has been given, and...that film has been given to the English broadcasters, the French broadcasters.... When asked specifically about Kodak, he stated, It has been submitted to Kodak by the broadcasters. Extensive checking, however, has revealed that no broadcaster, either French, English, or any other nationality, or the Eastman Kodak Company, has ever been given a single frame with image of the alleged alien autopsy footage. Furthermore, the only way that anyone has ever seen the alien autopsy sequence is on video. So far as is known, no one has ever seen it projected from 16mm film. Kodak's Unaccepted Offer ------------------------ Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York, has been standing by since July 1995 with an open offer to authenticate the film's date of manufacture. I confirmed this fact in a recent telephone conversation with Tony Amato, the Kodak motion-picture product specialist who would oversee the authentication process. Amato told me that Kodak has received repeated promises during the last six months from Santilli through an intermediary in the United States that film meeting the required criteria was on its way. According to Tony Amato, while the short-term loan of a complete reel of film would be desirable, Kodak would be willing to work with as little as two or three frames. The only damage to the film would be a small punch-hole in one frame -- not much of a sacrifice, especially considering the increased value authentication would bring. (With 16mm film, one frame represents 1/24th of a second -- less than 1/25,000th of an 18-minute sequence.) Amato explained that since the chemical composition of Kodak film has changed through the years, the approximate date of manufacture of a given piece of film can be determined by analyzing its exact chemical makeup and matching it with records of the chemical formulas for Kodak film from different years. Because Kodak never releases the formulas for any of its film, authentication of the film's date of manufacture by any other laboratory or institution would be of questionable value. Any film received by Kodak for testing would be returned intact (with the exception of the one small punch-hole in one frame) within a couple of weeks. The Collector ------------- In the August 28, 1995, British television interview (quoted previously), Santilli referred to the collector that bought the first autopsy. The alien autopsy film's being in the possession of a wealthy collector has been given as a reason for its unavailability. Thanks to the admirable efforts of the investigative team at Television France One (TF1), the only network in the world to do a true investigation into the matter of the Santilli film, we now know not only the name of the mysterious, so-called collector, Volker Spielberg, but also some things about Spielberg's background and business activities. Spielberg, like Santilli, is in the video distribution business. He has a small office in Hamburg, Germany, but presently resides in Austria. During a live interview on TF1's October 23, 1995, Jacques Pradel special about the autopsy footage, Ray Santilli, when pressed about providing the original film, danced around the issue and reiterated that matters were out of his hands. TF1 then showed video clips of Volker Spielberg's business office in a small cottage in Hamburg, Germany, and his apartment in Austria with his name visible on a common doorbell marker. It was then announced that TF1's background check revealed that Volker Spielberg was in fact not a film collector. At this point, Santilli became noticeably angry and accused TF1 of violating their agreement to keep certain aspects of the film story confidential. The announcer, Jacques Pradel, responded by pointing out that Santilli had failed to live up to certain promises he had made (such as providing the original film). TF1 also played an excerpt from the recording of a September 28, 1995, phone conversation between TF1 investigator Nicolas Maillard and Volker Spielberg. Maillard, whose demeanor was very courteous throughout the conversation, noted the potential importance of the supposed film that Spielberg possessed and asked for his cooperation in submitting it for verification. A partial transcript of Volker Spielberg's remarks follows. I want to be left alone. I'm a collector, I want to be out, and I want to have no contact with nobody regarding this matter because this is my personal thing....Simply I'm not interested. You see, the whole matter is of no interest to me, I have made up my mind. I have my belief and that's it. And I got what I want. I'm happy and that's it. What have I to do with this? As to my knowledge, I'll keep all the cans, yes, as to my knowledge, that's all I can tell you. Well, as to my knowledge I am, uh, possess all the film reels. Whether this is true or not, that's not up to me to judge, but that is my belief, yes. I don't want to support any f__kin' TV or radio station in this particular matter, no!...Come on, I've done my job, and all I can tell you is I'm happy, I got what I want, and that's it. I haven't bartered for any broadcast of public, and for any f__kin' papers and all that's going on worldwide. I'm not happy about it anyway. But, that's a different story. I have to accept that and I have to admit it's much too late to stop it, but no, I just want to be, if I may say so to you, left alone, okay.... When asked by Maillard if he didn't think this was something that should be shared with all humanity, Spielberg's answer was resoundingly clear! No, no, I don't think so, I have a totally different opinion, f__k the world, I mean, the world is full of egoism and so am I.... During the weekend of October 28, 1995 (a week after the Jacques Pradel show), TF1 investigators learned of a confidential meeting in Hamburg, Germany, between Ray Santilli, Volker Spielberg, and one or two other individuals. As it turns out, Santilli and Spielberg are apparently friends, as well as business partners, and have worked together before. Reportedly, the primary topic of discussion at the Hamburg meeting was a future CD-rom project involving the music of Frank Sinatra. The Missing Security Markings ----------------------------- One of the more bizarre aspects of the alien autopsy story is the relatively short videotape that has come to be called the tent footage. Unlike the other alleged autopsy film, the tent footage has not been publicly distributed or marketed. Videotape copies, however, were reportedly given to Philip Mantle, Reg Presley, and Colin Andrews in January 1995. The tent footage depicts some kind of emergency medical procedure or autopsy being carried out on an alleged alien in what appears to be a tent or barn. The picture quality is very poor,supposedly due to poor lighting, making it difficult, if not impossible, to accurately distinguish features. The alleged alien is different from the alien in the other autopsy footage in that it appears to have skinny limbs and to be much taller. This discrepancy has not been explained. With respect to the circumstances surrounding the scene, Colin Andrews wrote in his newsletter, Santilli verified that the photographer does indeed claim that this was an emergency procedure carried out in a barn at the crash site after discovering that one of the two aliens was in fact still alive. In the July 30, 1995, edition of the British newspaper Sunday Times, an article titled Film that 'proves' aliens visited earth is a hoax, by investigative journalist Maurice Chittenden, described the tent scene and some unusual security markings that appeared on the bottom right-hand side of the screen throughout the film -- markings that disappeared after their authenticity was challenged: RESTRICTED ACCESS A01 CLASSIFICATION SUBJECT 1 of 2 JULY 30th 1947 The Sunday Times article points out, however, that restricted access is not a recognized U.S. military code and that the A01 classification had been dismissed as pure Hollywood. Even more telling is the month- day-year format of the date. The U.S. military always uses a day-month -year format. Therefore, the date should have read 30 July 1947. Chittenden revealed that later, when film of the same autopsy was shown to John Purdie of Union Pictures...the coding had disappeared. Chittenden also reported that conflicting explanations were offered for the discrepancy. A British business associate of Ray Santilli's, Gary Shoefield, stated that no footage marked 'Restricted Access' had ever been released. However, when Santilli was contacted, he claimed that he had found the markings on one of the film canisters and had decided to run them on the film. Yet, a month earlier in an email letter to researcher James Easton, Santilli had indicated that the markings had been on the film since before he obtained it from the cameraman. Santilli wrote to Easton, On part of the tent footage there is a date board...It could be the date of process (developing), we don't know. Last summer, a reception was held in movie producer John Purdie's London office for the commissioning editors of Channel Four television. Philip Mantle, who attended the reception, said that Santilli and a business associate, Chris Carey, brought along and showed a videotape copy of the tent footage, which was -- unlike copies of the tent scene shown before or since -- of very good quality. According to Mantle, the two supposed doctors working on the alleged alien were not wearing surgical masks, and their faces were clearly visible. By way of contrast, the quality of the tent scene video delivered to TF1 and other television networks that paid big money for the broadcast rights was of such poor quality that it was considered unusable. Unlike the copy shown in Purdie's office, the faces of the medical personnel were no longer recognizable. This is significant. If a time-period film is hoaxed, it is important that there be no recognizable faces, especially if it's going to be shown on worldwide television. If one actor were recognized, it would all be over. (This is almost certainly why the observer behind the glass partition in the other autopsy sequence was inappropriately wearing a surgical mask.) In addition to The Sunday Times, a number of other mainstream British newspapers have run stories declaring the alien autopsy film a hoax. Interestingly, one British paper, The Mail on Sunday, made a rather curious discovery while researching the film. Reportedly, a routine check of their database revealed that Santilli had contacted the paper four years earlier claiming to have information on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Shroud of Turin. Debris Reflecting Super (Un)Advanced Technology ----------------------------------------------- Instead of the originally described dramatic scene with hilly terrain, a crane, a craft broken into large pieces, men in uniform, military equipment etc., the Santilli film debris site consists of the tops of two adjacent, small, wooden tables upon which lies some very unimpressive -looking material -- not much for the remains of an extraterrestrial spacecraft that would reflect an unimaginable degree of technological sophistication and whose remains were reportedly scattered over a three -quarter-mile-long area. What's shown, is, in fact, laughable. The camera focuses first on a couple of slabs of material (approximately two by three feet and three inches thick) with embedded six-fingered hand prints -- obviously to underscore the polydactyl quality of the aliens. Billed by Fox as possible alien control panels, the slabs look more like pieces from the pavement in front of Mann's Chinese Theater (formerly Grauman's) in Hollywood. Next we are shown an I-beam, complete with symbols. Although quite different from the I-beam described by Jesse Marcel, Jr., it was undoubtedly inspired by it. While a true I-beam is a structural member with an I-like cross section designed to maximize strength, it is obvious that the cross section of this I-beam does not meet that criterion. Instead, the beam looks suspiciously like a prop fashioned in a sheet metal shop. end