Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 12:43:12 -0700
To: snet-l@world.std.com
From: bnorton@community.net
Subject: Roswell Aliens (Nice Shades)
I patiently waited to view the Roswell Special which was broadcasted
last night on the Fox Network. I was a little confused as to what type of
alien was laying on the table. Does anyone know?
I remember reading that these aliens did not have any exterior
genitals. Why was there an area scrambled out between the legs via the TV ?
During the removal of the "Sun Glasses", or shades over the eyes, I
noticed that it was flexible like tissue, not a glass lens like maybe sun
glasses. Does anybody know if this was a removable lens, or was it cut-off.
Personably, I wish more information would surface. Remember the
first landing on the moon? Many old-timers believed that Hollywood
concocted the whole thing. I hope this film will be proven beyond a shadow
of a doubt. Maybe it already has. The Hollywood experts said they couldn't
re-produce the life-like creatures to look so real during the autopsies.
Well, hope to hear some feed back...
Bob Norton
bnorton@community.net
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 17:17:31 CDT
From: tfs@adc.com (Tony F Sgarlatti)
To: snet-l@world.std.com
Subject: Re: **Roswell Autopsie Review**
On Sun Aug 27 15:10:26 1995 rbs@bart.nl (Robin Tjaden) wrote:
> Well, the cat is out of the bag. Finally we got to see the Rowell
> autopsie. I'm not gonna give a very detailed description as
> you lot can see for yourselves in about a day or so.
> I don't think we got to see the Channel 4 documentary, but nonetheless
> it was nicely done IMHO.
>
> The first half hour it gave a the basic description about the Roswell
> crash in general. No so called experts, just the well known facts and the
> personal testemonies of the witnesses; the threats made by the air force,
> the initial statement made about the captured flying disk. The small
> bodies seen by people, the strange metal, hierogliphs, etc, ect.
> Then it went to the recent developements such as the contradictory
> statements about Project mogul, the GAO's recent investigations, the
> illegally destroyed documents. In other words, definately a cover up.
>
> There was a former soldier (or whatever), which had been at
> the first at the crash site and related his story for (I believe) the
> first time. He had a copy of his report which showed some drawings of the
> disk. It looked triangular in nature, but with very round tips and some
> sort of cockpit in the middle. From the side it looked like a disk.
>
> Then it went on to (finally) the santilli film (santilli himself gave
> also gave comments). Well, what can I say; It looked just like the
> stills, exept it moved :). They showed pieces of debris from the craft, but
> in the tent itself, not the crash site. There were pieces of metal which
> were hollowed out in the shape of a hand (six fingers, I counted).
> They had some sort of buttons at the tip of the finger and a arch of buttons
> above that. There were 2 of these (left and right hand on each) and one
> that was broken off. They showed a metal bar wich had symbols on it, but
> it had too much symbols to form the word 'video' as was said. They looked
> a bit like greek, but it was not the same.
> The autopsy was just as has been described. Two surgeons in hazard suits
> removing internal organs, putting them in containers and making notes.
> They clearly removed black lenzes which also shows that the eyes are indeed
> very large.
> Only two experts gave their opinion and frankly they didn't sound very
> convincing to me. One was a medical guy who said that the blood
> came out too slow of the incisions and that the organs were not human.
> He was 98 % sure it was a hoax. Then there was a special effects guy
> who said it was a good hoax (cost: tons for the body alone) and that
> some parts looked like styrofoam (? now, that's doubtfull). He also
> said that it would have been made no later than 1960 or so.
>
> That's about all the film that was shown. They did not show the opening
> of the head.
> They asked Santilli about the allegations that he hoaxed the film. He
> smiled and said, that if his company had wanted to make such a thing,
> why not make something that looks a lot *better* than this, especially the
> alien. All this discussion on wheter it is an alien or human, if your gonna
> fake it, why not make someting far more exotic and beyond a doubt alien.
> Although on overall the documentary was nice, it was not really what I had
> hoped fore. They showed far too little of the film. Luckily There will
> be more tomorrow :).
This is not the exact same film we saw. I received mail from another
individual who saw the film from the Dutch TV station Veronica and he
still is wondering about the coiled phone cord. The film we saw
explained this as a legitimate telephone from that era as well as the
clock on the wall.
We never saw the pieces of debris from the craft!
The medical expert did not talk about the blood coming out too slow or
that he was 98% sure it was a hoax. On the contrary, the medical expert
on last nights show, who had performed or witnessed over 40,000 autopsies,
sounded quite convinced that this was not human and mentioned nothing of
a hoax.
The special effects guys mentioned nothing about styrofoam, but that
they use a special silicon for skin that was not available during that
time, and other aspects of the film could not have been easily faked.
Last nights film also showed some clips with a private investigator
trying to find the 80+ year old camera man.
in general, the tone of last nights film was that the film was quite
possibly the real thing.
I made a VHS copy of last nights show, and would be happy to trade a copy
of this for a VHS copy of the Veronica version. If someone can make the
trade, send me private e-mail and we'll work out the details. Thanks!
Tony Sgarlatti
--
tfs@adc.com
Just say know!
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 05:43:03 -0100
To: snet-l@world.std.com
From: rbs@bart.nl (Robin Tjaden)
Subject: Re: **Roswell Autopsie Review**
>This is not the exact same film we saw. I received mail from another
>individual who saw the film from the Dutch TV station Veronica and he
>still is wondering about the coiled phone cord. The film we saw
>explained this as a legitimate telephone from that era as well as the
>clock on the wall.
They didn't even mention the phone here.
>
>We never saw the pieces of debris from the craft!
>
Mmmh, too bad,.. actually, I found them at least as interesting as the
alien body. The pieces they showed were obviously some sort of control
panels.
>The medical expert did not talk about the blood coming out too slow or
>that he was 98% sure it was a hoax. On the contrary, the medical expert
>on last nights show, who had performed or witnessed over 40,000 autopsies,
>sounded quite convinced that this was not human and mentioned nothing of
>a hoax.
Well, the guy on our show seemed like he had pretty much made up his
mind about it. This is only shows that there is little proof, but
a lot of opinions.
>The special effects guys mentioned nothing about styrofoam, but that
>they use a special silicon for skin that was not available during that
>time, and other aspects of the film could not have been easily faked.
There was only one special effect guy here. I made a mistake though;
he said that the film could be made/hoaxed (with that kind of effects) at
it's *earliest* in 1960, not before that.
>
>in general, the tone of last nights film was that the film was quite
>possibly the real thing.
>
At the end of the show they said that the pentagon would release more
documents in a couple of months and that it could develop into a Cosmic
Watergate.P
>I made a VHS copy of last nights show, and would be happy to trade a copy
>of this for a VHS copy of the Veronica version. If someone can make the
>trade, send me private e-mail and we'll work out the details. Thanks!
Unfortunately I don't have the tape right now and I'm going to be away
for the next couple of weeks.
-Robin Tjaden
-rbs@bart.nl
From: konjohn@eua.ericsson.se (John Self)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Autopsy anomaly
Date: 30 Aug 1995 10:28:14 GMT
I saw just the last 15 minutes (blast) or so of The Roswell Incident documentary on Swedish
TV last Sunday, and it was quite thought provoking. I saw the much-discussed telephone, the
jumpy, amateur camerawork, the (less than convincing?) internal organs, and so on.
Procedurally, I think the autopsy was sloppy. Here we have the most momentous event of the
20th century being carried out in a pseudo-convincing way. If you were carrying out the
autopsy you'd be cautious, meticulous and recording everything wouldn't you? Of course, normal
routine actions like cutting and stripping skin, sawing cartilage and bone you would carry out
in a fluid, practiced way. You've done all that before.
The bit that caused me some concern was the removal of the alien's eye shields or lenses.
The movement was without fumble or hesitation: a hand holding surgical tweezers just moved
to the lower edge of the left eye, grasped the outer part of the shield and removed it.
How easily it came away too. No gentle, exploratory pulling force to see what they were
dealing with, just a fluid movement which easily removed the shield. How did they know
that they wouldn't be puncturing the eye and release aqueous fluid, which they would need
to retain for analysis? How did they know that they were shields and not the actual eye?
This may be a small point, but to me the movement looked too easy. All right, I'll say it,
it looked rehearsed. They knew what the were doing because that's how they had done it before,
in rehearsal. (It is of course possible that this was their second attempt at an autopsy;
they practised on alien #1, and filmed #2. I doubt it though).
Let me know what you think.
//
//
\\ //
\\//
\/ohn "Yield to temptation - it may not pass your way again"
From: angus@hk.super.net (Angus Wong)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Santilli Film Report please, from around the world
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 17:39:15 +0800
Organization: Angus Wong
Hi everyone
The Santilli film is being show everywhere, more than 20 countries. People
from overseas can't see what you see. Can everyone please describe briefly
their local show?
Here's my contribution:
Hong Kong: Media jerks and assholes taunt the general population by
showing 5 minute clips of the Santilli film every night. We do not see the
whole thing. For example, TONIGHT I will see the autopsy proper. And they
have voiceovers that make me vomit. "Oooo, look at that knife. Must be
sharp." "Yuck, look at those yucky insides." Stuff like that. The media
crew for Asia Television (ATV) has sent ONE reporter to Roswell where she
interviewed some witnesses. I don't know if these guys are
self-proclaimed. They did interview owners of the crash site landsite, and
shot some videos of warehouses and ex-Wright-Patterson AFB, and stuff like
that. Some Roswell UFO museums. All in all, not a professional job and
very silly.
----------------------
From: angus@hk.super.net (Angus Wong)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Santilli Hoax Thread
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 17:06:55 +0800
> They only say " if it is a hoax, I wish whoever did it
> worked for us." What kinda of bonehead debunking is that?
Hahahaha.
> Time for some test by Kodak. Date the film and when it was exposed
> (developed) . Simple test. I understand from a friend who edits film for
> a living.
Do they actually date the film, something like C-12 dating, or do they
just check aging of chemicals? Can't this be faked by an aging process for
modern chemicals and film?
> If it's a hoax. He has made a profit. If it is real he will make more
> profit and go down in history!
>
> Funny. Smart man. He can't loose!
You can go down in history as a criminal. I doubt Santilli knows it's a
hoax. It's the people behind the film creation that are the criminals.
Santilli probably figured either it's a hoax or not but who cares as long
as he gets the royalties. I don't think Santilli is to blame. Except he
didn't elaborate enough on his uncertainties - but if he did it might not
sell. He's in a Catch-22.
In the Hong Kong reports we were told that it has been successfully
"proven" that the clock and phone are proper for the '47 time frame. It
was a GE model clock and a Bell phone. Supposedly they had coiled phone
cords back then too.
What about the dissection table? I did NOT notice any drainage tubes OR a
tub to catch liquid. Only holes. Now this could mean that the perpetrators
did not expect any liquids to spill out. How can they? If it was an alien,
how did they not expect anything goes? say, concentrated acid for blood?
(to take an extreme example).
And the hosts of the shows in Hong Kong stated that they asked about the
mobility of the cameraman. Supposedly the guy actually TOOK HIS PROTECTIVE
GARB OFF because it was compromising camera mobility. THIS DOES NOT JIVE.
How the hell can a camera guy simply say I want out of these clothes. No
way man! Not in those circumstances of extreme caution.
Also, how can the camera be so out of focus at close ups. This is a
PROFESSIONAL guy shooting the film. Otherwise why would the government
contract this job to a novice? He's had many years shooting experience.
These are some of my biggest concerns.
Angus.
From: pbstudge@aol.com (PBStudge)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Yet More Comments on Santilli's *Alien* Video
Date: 29 Aug 1995 22:48:08 -0400
Pete writes:>
>Subject: "Alien Autopsy" questions
>From: pashdown@xmission.xmission.com (Pete Ashdown)
>I watched with interest the Fox special "Alien Autopsy" last night.
>We've been debating various points throughout the office today. If the
>film is a hoax, it is definitely on the level of the Turin Shroud of the
>20th century.
The best ufo investigator in the field prior to his retirement was Jacques
Vallee. He predicted this type of hoax would happen years ago. True
Believers have created whole new bizzare belief sets and cults around not
the waiting for Godot, but waiting for UMMO (the base 12 cult of UMMO hoax
covered by Vallee in his book "Revealations").
Unlike the Catholic Church and the Shroud of Turin (now believed to be a
12th century piece picked up by the Knights Templar in the sacking or
occupation of the Byzantine Orthodox Catholic Church in one of the
crusades) which was extensively analyzed and "debunked", Mr. Santilli the
*films* owner refuses to turn over the film he has that contains *aliens*.
In short, the only film seen so far for analysis is a short piece of
leader (blank) and a two inch four frame section that has a picture of an
empty autopsy table in a shot unlike that used in the movie. Movie clips
are available a quite reasonable cost from archive houses in New York
City.
This film or video copies is used by film makers and set designers to get
things right when working up a historical simulation. The same film
segments blank leader could be used to create a cine loop and put into a
copying machine and used to create a *genuine* base stock having the
correct coding from 1947. This base stock could then be used to record
whatever you wanted creating a *genuine* film from 1947. The same
technique is how they create Composite or some Matte type effects in
Hollywood.
This has led at least this viewer to challenge Mr. Santilli into letting
the amateur independent film analyst who works at the JPL into testing the
film for the products of genuiness or disinformation. It is telling he
has avoided this question when he has been approached by journalists.
I've also challenged Santilli into taking a POLYGRAPH test like James
Oberg offered to do at NASA on the subject of what NASA knows about UFO's.
Guess what .... no reply from Santilli.
>The first and foremost question relates to the telephone. My sister
>claims that they didn't have "curly phone cords" before the 50's. The
>one on the wall in the footage definitely did. I seem to remember that
>the example telephone shown had one too. Can anyone verify?
The true believers have claimed that coily phone cords were available as a
special item in the late 30's. But, I side with you.
If this was a military base the clock would have been a 24 hour one and
not a 12 hour one. Also look closely at one of the people, it's a woman
doing some of the cutting. How many women surgeons worked in the ARMY in
the late 40's. I don't think so.
>Some other points:
>High contrast. Could this verify the story that the film needed extra
>processing and that is why it was held back from the government?
The *film* footage I saw resembled someone using a hand held video camera
and then running the signal through a TOASTERBOARD using a randomized
fractal pattern to give it that grainy effect.
>What is the effect of flourescent lights on this type of film.
More importantly think about this, you are shooting the most important
film in a the history of the human race. 1) You don't use a tripod 2) You
don't focus the camera 3) You don't ask the doctors to move 4) You
don't use either a Graflex 4x5" still camera and flash bulbs or any other
auxillary lighting 5) You don't use any marker boards to seperate or
start the rolls that will get mixed up in processing.... In short this is
a hoax.
>The suits. Were these contamination suits circa '47? I seem to recall
>that radiation suits of that time were on the equivalent of heavy brown
>monsters. I also found it interesting that the person behind the glass
>wore a suit as well. No identifiable persons.
Gee...I wonder why? Actually the suits look like those used in the last
ten years in the integrated circuit manufacturing business. In short
someone did this recently.
>However, you do get a good >look at the person's face behind the glass at
>one point. If I was hoaxing >this, I would have thrown in the backs of
>several top brass standing >around the table. :-)
I think they didn't want to make it to good. I suspect it is a nice piece
of performance art. MAYBE WE SHOULD CHECK WITH THE SECULAR HUMANISTS OUT
OF BUFFALO... You folks do remember the Jamal Noah's Ark/Sun Film HOAX
don't you... Use your web searcher engine and run a query. The full
report is on the web.
>The autopsy supposedly did take place in Roswell? Or was it at the
>second base where the bodies were flown? Is there a room in Roswell >AFB
that canmatch the room in the film?
What if the Roswell incident was a piece of theater meant to throw the
Russkies off during the coldwar? Think about it, how would you protect
your secrets... with even bigger secrets.
>The "DANGER" sign on the wall looked a little too modern as well.
Yup. Signs up until recently were all HANDPAINTED. IT'S A HOAX FOLKS!
>All in all, some good entertainment. I was surprised there wasn't more
>discussion on the net today about this.
-------
Please talk it up. But approach it from the angle of skeptic. Mr.
Santilli the films owner has been caught lying numerous times. He still
refuses to turn over the film for analysis, and no one, not even the best
PI's money can buy has been able to find any cinematographer as described
by Mr. Santilli... Even though we have his *name* Jack Barnett, we know
his age now 82-83, we know his service record and his clearance, highest
level 10 years Army and Air force. In short, yet another Santilli Factoid
that never checks out. 'Nuff said.
>Pete Ashdown pashdown@xmission.com Salt Lake City,
>Utah
> XMission Internet Access - Data: 801 539 0900 - Voice: 801 539 0852
From: gvey@aol.com (GVEY)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Where are they from? Some thoughts...
Date: 29 Aug 1995 21:48:05 -0400
I was disappointed that FOX only showed sslected parts of the alien
autopsy. I'm not a physician but I have seen numerous autopsies while
studying to be a medical illustrator. The procedures were familiar to me
and looked very real. I had the same feelings when looking at the body on
that table as I did when I looked at something that I knew was once
animated back in the Deeners room. I'm convinced.
Assuming that this creature was visiting back in 1947, where might it come
from? A few suggestions frim anatomy might help... big eyes could mean
living in an ambiance of lower light than we have on Earth - a fact echoed
by the dark "lenses" that this creature wore. Perhaps somewhere more
distant from our Sun, or perhaps from some dimmer lit world in the local
universe? And what about the fingers? Our decimal system of numbers is
derivative of our once counting on our hands. Could we expect that these
creatures use a base system of 12? Is that not the system of geometric
measurement that the Babylonians and Sumerians attributed to their "Gods"?
Height could be indicative of gravity and planet mass. Lack of teeth (did
anyone see any?) could indicate foliage and fauna available for nutrition.
Then there is both the lack of mamilaries and a navel - are these
creatures perhaps hatched? - or are they "manufactured" lifeforms of some
higher race we have yet to encounter? Their brain showed no hemispheric
division or grooves. Could this have been a young creature? The bilateral
control of a being with left and right limbs would suggest a bilateral
brain, perhaps covered by some new or more fully developed unilateral
brain structure responsible for non-physical (and thus freed from having
to be bilateral) endeavor or talent...
Your comments are welcome here or GVEY@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: The Rosswell[sic] Incident
Organization: MJ-12
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:33:27 GMT
bazzer@mistral.co.uk (Bazzer) writes:
>Hi there.
>Yesterday (Monday) at 9pm on Channel 4 we had an hour's viewing of the
>Rosswell Incident (also available on VCR tape over here in the UK).
>Anyone who saw the documentary couldn't but be struck by the sincerity
>and genuineness of the eye-witness accounts who saw the crashed saucer
>and the space beings (why does eveyone insist on calling them
>"aliens"?? - most of whom were told to keep quiet at the time.
But that's precisely the problem with the documentary. Too much
time spent on "eyewitnesses" (who we just had to trust were
telling the truth) and too little time on the one thing which
could offer verifiable proof: the film.
Could that be because the film itself really won't stand up
under critical examination?
>Whether or not the Santilli film is genuine or not is missing the
>point. It *did* happen!
The question is "What is the *it* that happened?"
Skeptics don't deny that *something* happened. We just take
issue with the crashed saucer[s] explanation.
--
Anson Kennedy "Just say, 'No J.'" | Internet: anson@netcom.com
(I doubt it's even me writing!) | Compu$erve: 71167,2435
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics Resources FTP Site Megs and megs of skeptic stuff!
ftp to "ftp.netcom.com" cd to directory "pub/an/anson"
Georgia Skeptics Home Page
http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/gs-index.html
From: rachanist@aol.com (Rach Anist)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Alien Autopsy seen in 1953!
Date: 29 Aug 1995 19:13:21 -0400
Hello all, let me say that I saw the Alien Autopsy show on FOX last night
and it all come back to me! Sometime between 1985-1988 by late
grandfather, who was a retired Genearl for the US Air Force told me that
he was at the stationed at a arm bases somewere in NV. (I can't recall
were). He told me that one late night, around 1953,on the base he and
three others were talking about the so-called UFO that crashed at Roswell
in 1947. He and his good friend that it was a big joke started by the Air
Force. To make a long store short the other man with them said that he saw
the Aliens and that he new how to get the film. Well, three days later my
grandfather and his friend went to the others guys house. There they were
showed a film of the autopsy and of the crash site. He didn't tell me
much detail about it that I can remember. I forgot all about the store
until Monday night. I remember clear him telling me that there was two men
and other man behide a glass window during the autopsy! My grandfather
said that he promised to never tell anyone about it so he don't, not until
years later. But he told me that he thought it was a joke. I thought it
was a joke also..until last night. Now I don't know. Just thought I would
share this, I know most want believe it but it is true...unless i dreamed
it or my grandfather lied to me.
Rachel
From: cee1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.fan.art-bell
Subject: On Art Bell Mon. Night Conc. FOX show
Date: 29 Aug 1995 17:33:10 -0500
Last night on Art Bell (late night AM Radio show) a female caller
from Texas, if I rememerb correctly, called that she had missed
the video, BUT.. argh trying to remember.. she knows someone who
knows all about the film and was sending her information.. including
WHO the cameraman was. Art was to be getting this information
some time today.. or least get into collaboration. and said he
was going to have to think long and hard of what he would do if
he came to know who the cameraman was.. whether to keep his anony-
minity (sp) or do an interview or what. Any one else hear that
last night.. My memory just went blank on it. Anyway.. should hear
something tonight.. We may have SOMETHING big here.
chuck
cevans@bme.utmem.edu
From: magus@hassop.demon.co.uk (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy - Who's making the money
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:14:48 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE
srdrake@primenet.com (Stephen Drake) wrote:
>Rush has always said that you can often understand the motives
>in events by tracing the money trail. Specifically,
>who makes the money from something happening. Therefore I ask,
>who is in a position to make money from the alien
>autopsy film? Are the "witnesses" of the Roswell incident
>who were interviewed benefiting financially from the
>Roswell incident? Have any of them written any books? Are UFO
>organizations benefiting financially from this
>increased awareness of the Roswell incident? Who has a vested
>interest in expanding and dramatizing the Roswell incident?
>Personally, I found the show last night to be more fluff and
>sensationalizing than actually examining the film and
>evidence.
>-Stephen
Dear Stephen,
Mike Wooton of BUFORA at Sheffield admitted that BUFORA "were in it for the money" as
far as the Santilli affair was concerned, albeit, the motives were altruistic.
Channel Four were producing a film on Roswell anyway, so their viewpoint is bound to
be more objective than Fox, who were negotiating with Santilli and depending upon
*some* sort of genuineness, however vague to make the program sell. Just think, the
footage is debunked and Fox do not sell airtime.
Other beneficiaries include UFOlogists jumping on the band wagon as far as their
reputations are concerned. Hesseman is an example. He has stated that his research
has verified the film being genuine, when in all reality, he has just danced to
Santilli's tune.
One cannot help but think whether or not Santilli planned to sell it to the Networks
only or planned to just sell videos or just both.
If we think about it, if he had kept quiet about it, not bothered plastering it over
the web and then let FOX fabricate a story around it and THEN release it on the web,
he would have made a real killing.
I find it difficult to come to terms with, that after TWO years of negotiating for
the film, he should fluff it and act indecisively once it was in his possession.
At the time of the BUFORA conference, he had only had orders for 400 videos, I cannot
think this number will increase dramatically now that it has been aired, will be
repeated and recorded by millions.
I suspect he will sell the film on *very* shortly!
From: stewartb@uniserve.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: FOX Showing of Santilli Film
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 20:12:56 GMT
Organization: UNIServe Online
Well I just watched FOX's presentation of the Santilli film and I have
to say that I was disapointed. They showed maybe five minutes worth of
the film in intermitent bits and pieces. They would show you the same
pieces over and over again. After hearing in this discussion group
about the quantity of film available for viewing it was dissapointing.
I guess Santilli wants you to buy the video.
From: nsimar@aol.com (NSimar)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: FOX Showing of Santilli Film
Date: 29 Aug 1995 17:39:31 -0400
Well, it does seem as if we got short schrift. Can you believe that FOX
only bought 5 minutes worth of footage.
But then look how Encounters cut up various films and videos and strung
them together like some music video.
.....................
Nathan
From: magus@hassop.demon.co.uk (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: CHANNEL-4 SNUBS SANTILLI FILM
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 19:59:01 GMT
CHANNEL FOUR SNUBS SANTILLI FILM
By Kevin O'Crean
Aug 29th 1995
The message placed over by John Purdie, the producer of Secret History : The Roswell
Incident, shown on Channel 4 TV on Monday 28th August was clear.
1. Yes we do believe something crashed at Roswell
2. Yes we do believe the Airforce are lying.
3. We *cannot* believe you Mr Kaufmann.
4. We *do not* believe you Mr Santilli!
What follows is a précis of the documentary.
Secret History: The Roswell Incident was an excellently produced program that began
at the start of the Roswell Incident in 1947.
The program began by stating that the elite 509th Bomber group, the one responsible
for dropping the atomic bomb were stationed at Roswell, New Mexico. A local man
called William Woody, told his story of a strange light seen in the sky, moving to
the north. He related how he and a companion traveled up the highway, only to find
servicemen stopping any egress to the desert either to the east or west of the
highway.
Next Loretta Proctor was interviewed. Still living in the same location all these
years , she relayed the story of how Brazell, rode 20 miles on horseback and showed
them pieces of wreckage he had found. She described a purplish type of writing on
parts of it. She advised him to take it to the Sheriff as he may have found a flying
saucer.
Next day, Brazell took his find to Sheriff Wilcox at the Chaves county office. He in
turn informed the 509th bomber group. Major Jesse Marcel was placed in charge of the
investigation. He went to the location and collected more debris. However, instead of
taking them immediately to base, he took them home first and showed them to his wife
and 12 year old son.
-------------
COMMENT
This fact in itself is strange. It is quite obvious that the USAF were not aware of
anything untoward as Major Marcel seemed not to be under any great urgency and even
took some items home.
-------------
The wreckage was shown to Blanchard the officer in command at Roswell and he
instructed Haut to place out a Press Statement that a flying saucer had been found.
Once in the hands of Ramie, however, the mysterious behavior of the military began to
come to light.
A photograph is shown of Jesse Marcel with the wreckage of what is obviously a
weather balloon and this fact is confirmed by Irving Newton, the station Met Man who
identified positively as a radar reflector. A news release accordingly was released
to this effect.
However, Channel four, then track back to Jesse Marcel's son, who said that the
material shown on the photograph was not what his father had brought home that night.
Now, witnesses are interviewed as to the harassment received from the local military.
Frankie Dwyer, the local fireman's daughter was threatened by the military and
tearfully recounted the event. A local newscaster also told of a telephone threat
from a Pentagon official and then the owner of the broadcasting station himself
recounted that he had been threatened with immediate shutdown if anything was
broadcast again.
------------------------
COMMENT
Left to its own devices, the Roswell incident could have died a natural death without
the harassment of the military, but this very action alone indicated that something
was very wrong and has perpetuated the affair.
------------------------
Blanchard some years later at a reunion commented that it was "the damnedest thing I
ever saw" and to a friend "I have never seen anything like that before"
In 1978 Jesse Marcel went public and declared how there had been a cover-up.
----------------------
COMMENT
This is where the story starts to become very weak. Channel four were obviously
showing part of a previous interview with Marcell in 1978. It is not shown in this
program, that he admitted he had been told to lie and his comments were very 'thin'
and inconclusive
-----------------------
Du Bose was told by McMullin to give the press the balloon story. McMullin had been
in charge of the affair at the pentagon and he told him not to discuss it under any
circumstances.
-----------------------
COMMENT
Up to this point the Roswell story is going very well and what evidence we have heard
is very believable and the witnesses credible. But now, a new element emerges, that
begins to take us into the realms of unsubstantiated fantasy, for the first time.
We now start to hear about 'people' taken from the crash site. All this evidence is
Hearsay and third hand reports except one, which is from a most unbelievable
character called Frank Kaufmann. He was a Master Sergeant (note not an officer) who
was working also for a clandestine group called the 'The Nine'. Kaufmann feels it is
OK to relate the following account with impunity, yet cannot relate his duties in
this top secret military unit where he conducted what he strangely describes as
'somewhat classified duties'.
---------------------
Kaufmann relates the story about strange radar returns on the local radar screens and
a strange light. He rather weakly explains how they tracked and found the alien craft
in the desert at night. It was embedded in an embankment. One body was against the
embankment. The craft was half open, he does say under what circumstances, so one
assumes, it is split open. Another occupant is hanging hallway out and three others
are inside. He then explains how the whole area is cleared and the craft and the
bodies are taken away to hangar 84.
Glenn Dennis relates his story of how he was hastened off the base premises after
delivering a serviceman to the hospital at the base. He recounts his meeting with the
mysterious nurse and a meeting he had with her the next day. This story of course is
again 2nd hand and hearsay.
Kaufmann describes how the alien wreckage is placed in the center of hangar 84 and
lit by a spotlight from above and there are 5 bodies also laid out. Kaufmann
throughout his story is giving little or no detail whatsoever of the incident. It is
all sketchy. He does mention if one of the beings is alive as does the next witness.
Ruben Anaya was a driver with limited security clearance who was that night driving a
guy called Montoya who was visiting the base. Here it is alleged that the wreckage is
seen and not only that, one of the aliens' is still alive.
Frankie Dwyer is interviewed again and she tells of how her father had told her that
there were 'little people' taken from the crash 'not human' and that one was still
alive and actually walking around.
Sheriff Wilcox had also told his daughter who was interviewed that bodies had been
found and that one was alive.
Kaufmann was challenged about his testimony, in that it could not be substantiated by
any means and that it relied totally on his word. "That is right" he replied "Take it
or leave it".
Now the military explanations of the weather balloons and project mogul and even V2
experiments are eliminated. Charles Moore's weak excuse that it was project Mogul is
discounted as a lie by examination of the flight records of the balloons. No record
of a flight was made on the 4th June and also, it was revealed that unsuccessful
launches were recorded, contrary to Moores assertions.
Congressman Schiff is also interviewed and he recounts that there is altogether three
explanations to the Roswell incident: A UFO, a weather balloon or Mogul and that
there has been NO denial of a crash as such.
New Mexico is quoted as being the most secretive state in the whole of the USA, being
the testing ground for the Trinity atomic tests and the present exercise area for the
stealth fighter aircraft.
White Sands missile range is interviewed and they say they had nothing on that day to
account for the Roswell crash.
What would have ended a reasonable story was then clouded and muddied by the
inclusion of the alleged Roswell Autopsy. John Purdie would have had no choice but to
include this so-called new evidence as it appeared during their own shooting of their
documentary.
Immediately, right from the start Santilli is criticized for his lack of cooperation
for not keeping his word in introducing them to the cameraman.
Parts of the autopsy are shown. The initial scanning of the body by the cameraman,
then the cursory examination by the 'surgeons' and some incisions. A Dr West a home
office forensic pathologist gives a commentary. He states that there appears to be a
large organ, which is probably a liver taken from the body. He states that the
pattern of blood with the incisions is unusual. There were not enough smearing and
not consistent with usual cuts made to tissue.. He states that the video is not
enough to prove that the autopsy is a hoax or otherwise, but he states professionally
that in his 98% opinion, he feels it is a hoax.
The chest and abdomen is shown fully expressed, there are no signs of a rib cage, the
shell of the body appearing to be self supporting. A special effects expert, Bob
Keen, takes up the narrative and states that he feels it is a hoax, but probably one
costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. He states specifically that it looks like
rubber and in his opinion it is rubber.
Santilli is interviewed next and is presented with the facts that he is thought to be
in on the hoax. He replies that this is nonsense and why produce a hoax that was so
borderline instead of something that looks like a true alien. He is contested over
the fact that no film has been produced for scientific testing.
Here also curiously, he begins to labour the point that the cameraman has not, at
*any* time said they were aliens, but merely freaks. This is a new get out option
being subtely introduced by Santilli.
Here, curiously, he does not contest this fact by trying to convince the Channel four
team that Kodak have dated the film, but instead says "I will provide you with film,
err, with what I can, err, with image, I will be securing a film from the first
autopsy which is en-route"
-----------------
COMMENT
It seemed to be in the hands of our friend Hesseman, who relayed onto CompuServe that
the film unfortunately was damaged and held no images whatsoever. In short, whatever
the reason, Channel four didn't get that either!
------------------
Channel four in the end, make no bones about it, they do not believe him.
Kaufmann is seen watching the film and then says, that the alien does not look like
the alien's he saw and in his opinion, the Roswell footage had nothing to do with
Roswell at all!
Channel four then showed the wreckage footage and make an observation that the
letters appear to spell out the word VIDEO. This justifies what observers saw
(WITHOUT PROMPTING) at Sheffield.
Jesse Marcel Jr makes a brave attempt to identify the symbols on the wreckage from
the film, but says that the ones he saw were not raised up as they were on the
footage.
To summarize, Channel four state emphatically that the video is not conclusive
evidence that the film is genuine. One such step would be to have the film
scientifically tested and the cameraman to be interviewed. They relay again that no
such evidence has been forthcoming.
........................
Kevin O'Crean
From: 911662fe@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Neil Fernandez)
Subject: WHO'S BEHIND THE ROSWELL DOCUMENTARY?
Sender: news@udcf.gla.ac.uk (News)
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Service
The most interesting bit in the documentary was near the end,
about how "a source close to the Pentagon" said new info is going
to come out in the next few months providing further explanation,
in particular of the the bodies found at the crash site.
I don't see what "a source close to the Pentagon" can mean
apart from the Pentagon itself.
The film's near-simultaneous showing across the world also
points to high level involvement, as does the fact that Santilli's
apparent (and I mean apparent) insistence on not disclosing the name
of the photographer did not lead the programme makers to portray him
in aggressive fashion as a hoaxer.
Funny too that they didn't mention that President Truman's supposed
to be on the film somewhere, when this would be very strong evidence for
the film's genuineness.
There's more to come, boys and girls, and it's coming out
according to some kind of plan.
From: tim.shell@support.com
Subject: Troubles with footage?
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
knwatson@nedernet.nl (Ken Watson) points out some scuttlebutt r.e.,
"the film:"
>There's a lot of info around here, and far more critical appraisal
>than I can hope to give. But here a few of the most troubling aspects:
>- modern telephone
This has been discussed and dismissed as a "non-issue." The phone
is consistent with the period.
>- physicians have their identities disguised - why?
They appear to be wearing some kind of suit to protect themselves from
biological contamination. Or, they might be hiding their identities
to keep from being recognized.
>- all critical camera shots out of focus (close-ups) despite the
associated film of crash wreckage being sharp
According to the cameraman's story, these were the "bad" reels that
needed additional work before shipping them on. Also, it's been
discussed that the cameraman was most likely wearing a protection
suit and using a camera which did not provide through-the-sight
focusing. There was no suit worn, apparently, to film the debris,
since there wasn't a risk of contamination. Or, the out-of-focus
close-ups were intended to obscure details which might show the
body to be artificial.
>- Special effects team spotted an apparent 'seam' as of a casting on
the arm of the alien
"Apparent" being the key word. It could be a lot of things. Could
the hoaxers be so incompetent that they failed to disguise the seam
after working so hard on the rest of the body? Why give that footage
to Santilli in the first place?
>- discontinuity at point of exposure of brain tissue (see head being
sawn open apparently, but the shot *cuts* to the "non-human-looking'
brain tissue (which could therefore have been placed there manually).
Ran out of film at the critical moment because it took longer to saw
through the skull? How long does it take to load a new roll of film?
Or, it could have been convenient to cover an inconsistency.
>- section of film date-tested did not contain any shots of the alien
Didn't it have a view of the empty operating room? If so, then someone
would have to duplicate the operating room. Pretty expensive. Anyway,
over time there will most likely be plenty of time to accurately date
the film. No hurry.
>- Words 'TV VIDEO' alledgedly visible on debris in at least the
*video* copy of the original 16mm film of the crash debris
Unlikely that the alleged hoaxers would overlook such a damning piece
of "evidence" in the visible footage. Are these people clever or are
they incompetent? We're not talking about the LAPD here. There is
also an opinion that the markings are "reminiscent" of lettering, but
do not read "TV VIDEO."
>- suspicious lack of attention on the authorities' part in recovering
these "lost" 22 reels of film
Doesn't look good for either the story or the gov. But one should never
underestimate the incompetence of bureaucracy.
Tim "just mulling things over, not making any judgments" Shell
--------------------
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
From: tim.shell@support.com
Subject: Saw Film, What Next?
Okay. So we've had a chance to look at some second-hand dramatized documentary
of a bit of the footage. No debris footage. No "tent" footage. No "crash
site" footage. No footage of the crystals being taken out. Fine.
What did it "prove?" Well, what could you realistically expect it to prove?
As stated before, the stills by themselves mean nothing, and footage itself
means nothing. It remains intriguing, since it exists without a verified
context. That's always a brain-teaser.
If the footage convinced you any more one way or the other, then you're only
allowing your own predispositions to be expressed. That's okay, you're
entitled to an opinion. But you should be aware that there was nothing
presented in the FOX documentary that added any additional information to the
discussion. So if the documentary convinced you one way or another, then it
came from you, not from anything presented on the show.
So if you want to join one of the various "camps" which have arisen, hey,
that's great. When the actual truth of the matter comes out, you'll either
have to dine on some crow or you'll be able to scream to all who care (i.e.,
nobody), "I told you so!" If that's important to you.
On the other hand, you might just want to consider hanging back, looking at
both sides of the argument as it's presented, weighing the various bits and
pieces of evidence as it comes to light, and so on. There's no hurry here.
Take as long as you want. Years, if necessary.
Then... after careful, thoughtful consideration... withhold judgment.
Just a suggestion.
True, you don't get the satisfaction of bragging to everyone who cares (that
would be nobody, again) what an incredibly insightful person you are, but
you'll have the advantage of expanding your personal menu of foods for thought.
You should try to keep in mind that you and I and Jacques Vallee and Philip
Klass and everyone else will be dead some day, and it won't matter. So why
limit yourself to one boring viewpoint?
Tim "keep amusing me" Shell
From: esbenl@ifi.uio.no (Esben Lund)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: I'm convinced!
Date: 29 Aug 1995 20:32:21 +0200
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
Before I saw the program I was really in doubt about this case,
I am no more.
I saw it with my brother and we tried to analyze and sum it all
up afterwards.
Something was no doubt found in the dessert, but what was it?
Option 1: A UFO.
The main interviewed witness was an old "secret agent"
no one had heard of.
He had seen the crash on radar in White Sands (far from
the site), and had quickly found it by car.
(I think he mentioned some light from the crash site).
He found 5 aliens (didn't mention any alive ones),
and only one (dead) outside the craft.
The hand on one of the corpses was rotting (after a few hours!).
The craft was only 7 meters and the cockpit (on the sketch)
was far to small for 5 bodies (of the autopsy size).
The craft on his (very bad) sketch looked quite undamaged,
so why should it spread pieces of foil and metal over a vast
area several miles from the crash site.
The explosion required wouldn't leave the craft unhurt and
seamingly whole.
The rest of the UFO "witnesses" were only "secondhand" telling
about someone who had seen the UFO (I don't remember whether
it was the "secret agent" who said he didn't remember the
6 fingers or someone else).
Many of the stories contradicted each other.
The officer on the homemade interview said it all was a big coverup.
He didn't mention UFO's.
The part were he talks about the Mogul-balloon or some other
military project could easily have been removed.
The autopsy was just a joke. Did it look professional?
Would you expect an autopsy of an alien lifeform to be like this?
They just sliced her up and threw bodyparts into buckets!
These military doctors looked more like graverobbers than
archaeologists to me.
It was absurd, a total hoax in my book (That's why I didn't
base my general impression on it).
I read several places that the film was from 47, in the program
they said that no film had been analyzed!
No UFO witness was able to produce evidence and none of them had
ANY precise knowledge.
Adding the contradictions makes this theory very unsubstantiated
and weak.
Option 2: The military version.
They claim that it was a Mogul balloon.
Balloons are constructed with a very strong and thin "foil".
Some light-weight construction hanging from the balloon is
also reasonable.
In 47 lightweight alloys and plastics were quite uncommon
and the finders could have seen these materials for the first
time.
According to the logs they hadn't lost a balloon on that day,
it had probably laid there for some time.
(The program questioned the Mogul story, due to the logs.
I don't remember exactly why.)
People had been seing a lot of bright lights (like the sun).
These balloons looked quite immense, and if built from
foil, they'd easily reflect the sun.
Haven't you been blinded by a car-window a mile away?
I have :)
Why the UFO press-release?
This is the real core of the story, and what keeps it alive.
The release was very premature and didn't mention bodies
or wreckage that couldn't be from a big Mogul balloon.
The release was based on rumours and asumptions that this
was an UFO. The Officer in charge released the story very premature,
without knowing what had been found. This was a great mistake.
They had unknowingly stumbled into some Top Secret balloon.
A coverup was necessary turning everything into a mess.
In '47 secret things were "extremely" secret and everybody
was a possible communist-spy. This explains the coverup to
me. Of course times were different then, and all the talk about
a UFO, drew great attention to Roswell, making a big security
force necessary. Don't forget that Orson Welles had announced
an Alien invasion some years earlier, scaring everybody.
People wanted (want?) to believe in UFO's (They are charming
I must admit) and bought Welles' story.
A story released by the military was even better.
Conclusion:
The military version is by far the best, and unless the UFO
supporters doesn't produce hard evidence (not film)
(Why didn't they keep or hide some of that incredible material
they found?) their theories are worth NOTHING to me.
The Roswell incident is a closed chapter to me.
Esben Lund
From: kevb@tcp.co.uk (kevb)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Roswell footage on uk tv
Date: 29 Aug 1995 18:28:31 GMT
>From reading the posts here it seems that the various clips shown of the
>roswell film were the same.What appears to be different is the rest of
>airtime that was used.
In the uk showing a few new facts were disclosed.It appears that there
was a counter-intel operation being carried out in Roswell and the White
Sands area,During the months prior to the crash a lot of unidentifed radar
activity was reported.This resulted in counter-intelliegnece agents being
sent down to investigate.These operatives were known as 'The Nine'. On the
Uk showing one of these agents came forward to the doucmentary team, he
was named as Frank Kauffman.He produced copies of drawings that he had
done at the crash site.The drawing looked very similar to some kind of
flying wing.He did say that he saw five small bodies lying around the
impact site. On being shown the film footage he said that he couldnt
remeber the bodies having six fingers.
Mr Santilli was also interviewed..the producers asked him on camera if
he was prepeared to give them a sample of film for Kodak to test.He
declined on the grounds that there was no film available but he was
waiting for some to arrive !
One final item was the fact that the producers were contacted by a high
up source in the pentagon.The soruce was not named or filmed but was
quoted as saying that top secret documents thought to have been destroyed
had been found and were to be realeased in the next few months.They would
explain the autopsy footage...whatever that may mean.
There were other bits on information but without doing a complete trans-
script I feel this above is the main info that I was not aware of before
the showing.
One last item...the tape went on sale in the shops of the programme shown
with an additonal 20-25 mins of footage....after 5 mins the tape goes
blank :)...I can only assume this is a duplication error and not intended
and hopefully I can rectify the situation by exchanging the tape :)
From: rdol@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Richard Dolan)
Subject: Re: Now That I've Finally Seen the Film....
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
In <41U9EP$408@NEWS.WCO.COM> Michael Carlin writes:
> I'm more confused than before. I must admit, after
>going in quite skeptical, the film is far more impressive
>than I expected. I guess I assumed that scene, setting,
>etc., would scream hoax. To my untrained eyes, it did
>not.
This was my own reaction, too.
>My main objection to the film being an actual alien
>autopsy is that I still find it very hard to believe that
>life that evolved in another star system would resemble
>humans so closely. The odds against this occurring must
>be astronomical.
I wonder about that, actually. Aren't there some logical parameters needed
for life to develop -- whether here or in other star systems?
After all, the same 92 naturally occuring elements are throughout the
universe, and from what scientists know about the development of life,
certain (many, actually) well-defined conditions need to occur.
A bipedaled hominid may turn out to be an extremely well-designed and
common adaptation. Or--assuming for the moment that the footage was not a
hoax--perhaps there would be a biological relationship between the human
species and the creature on the table? A break-off point in the evolution of
the species? Admittedly, this is pure speculation.
> I found Cyril Wecht's speculation about a radiation
>case to be compelling even if it did not explain all the
>physical anomalies. It's also hard to ignore Stan
>Winston's opinion about the film. If it is a hoax it is
>well done and expensive.
Extremely well done. I agree completely. I was surprised at how convincing
it looked. The problem, to my mind, is that this footage will never be
decisively proven or disproven. If, as Brian Zeiler and others suggested,
it's a work of the intelligence community, then we can assume the proper
bases have been covered.
Actually, the real question, it seems to me, is: how can the footage be
disproven? There are several areas to look at:
1. The dating of the film. Is it definitively from 1947, as the FOX
special seemed to suggest?
2. Can we interview the cameraman?
3. Are there truly no plausible human medical conditions that would
explain the body on the table?
4. Are there plausible special effects explanations? Again, the FOX
special implied perhaps not.
Certainly there are many other questions to consider. My opinion is
that we need to attempt a definitive debunking of this film before
proceeding with any speculation about it being what it purports to be. There
is still much left to be ruled out.
Rich Dolan
From: dfowler
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Now That I've Finally Seen the Film....
Date: 29 Aug 1995 12:08:02 GMT
Organization: Fowler Computer Arts
Michael Carlin wrote:
> ---[ CLIP ]---
> I still find it very hard to believe that
>life that evolved in another star system would resemble
>humans so closely. The odds against this occurring must
>be astronomical.
Well, I must agree with that, to some extent, but what if WE didn't actually
climb out of the primordial slime way back when, and are somehow decendants
of those fellas'? That could explain the similarity in my mind.
> I found Cyril Wecht's speculation about a radiation
>case to be compelling even if it did not explain all the
>physical anomalies.
Not me, I mean sure it _COULD_ be one explanation, but how long would a human
have to be exposed to radiation to develop entirely different features, bone
structure etc... A LONG time I would have to guess.
> Did anyone else notice a wound in the right armpit? I
>had not heard this mentioned in any description. It
>looked very weird in the glimpse I got but perhaps it was
>just an artifact of the "autopsy".
Hummm, Nope, I didn't see that, I'll have to replay it and look for that.
>
> So, I still don't know what this film is. Although it
>appears to be something very strange,
I'll agree with that 100% I'm with you, as a "non-Expert" in any of the
fields required to make an educated evaluation, I'm stiil on the fence as
to the authenticity of the poor critter on the slab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Fowler | Ray Tracing featuring POV-RAY
Fowler Computer Arts | Custom Letterheads, Logos, Etc...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: randomity@aol.com (Randomity)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Now That I've Finally Seen the Film....
Date: 29 Aug 1995 18:53:31 -0400
If we grant, for the sake of argument, that the being is non-human, why
must we then leap to the conclusion that it came from outer space. There
are plenty of non-human species on this planet. Assuming, out of a whole
cloth, a sort of reverse Star Trek scenario, along with the mind twisting
challenge of interstellar travel ( a much headier concept than even
anti-gravity) adds a level of complexity and improbaility that is entirely
uncalled for by the observed facts. For the very reasons you cited, I
would operate under the working hypothesis that the creature is
terrestrial and that it undoubtably has genetic links to our species.
Perhaps there is a connection with the persistent legends of elves and
"little" people that have been with us from the mists of time. Were only
talking about technology a few decades away. Surely there has been plenty
of time in Earth's history for another species to have evolved just a
little more than us.
From: ethomps1@email.unc.edu (E. W. Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Roswell Autopsy Film: A Hoax!
Date: 29 Aug 1995 13:01:30 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
>From ethomps1@email.unc.edu Tue Aug 29 08:53:17 EDT 1995
Article: 81631 of alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: SANTILLI/FOX SHAVED MONKEY S**T
Date: 29 Aug 1995 12:43:40 GMT
I'm with you, Studge old boy. I thought the autopsy film was a fake, and
seeing the little bit of it on FOX last night reinforced my opinion. I
watched it with my wife and a good friend who is also well read in UFO
lore, and we all but laughed at the amateurishness of the whole thing. NO
evidence, NONE, was presented during the whole broadcast. The "film
experts" never saw the actual film, just samples of leader provided by
... Ray Santilli. William Dear, master detective (remember his book "The
Dungeon Master?") makes a big show of finding the cameraman. . . and
doesn't. The tearful woman talks about being threatened by evil US
Military types not to talk about the alien debris she saw . . . so she
talks about it on national TV. And the same evil military types who have
the time and nerve to threaten the lives of young civilian girls can't be
bothered to recover film of a top secret alien autopsy from their own
cameraman??? Jesus! If this was a movie or novel, nobody would believe it!
The autopsy itself was seriously disappointing. Why wasn't a STILL
PHOTOGRAPHER present? Why weren't there ANY details in the scene that
would identify the location? Why was the observer's face covered, even
though he was outside the room looking in through a window? Why was such
a momentous scientific study done in such a small room, without obvious
instrumentation, sound recording, and expert witnesses? When the first
atomic bomb was set off at Trinity Site (surely as secret a project as an
alien autopsy) there were dozens of witnesses observing. Why wasn't this
procedure done in a secure operating theatre? Alien organs were removed
and not weighed, not sectioned, not preserved in alcohol or formalin.
This is not high tech folks--I've seen better scientific procedures in a
high school biology class! So what if the "doctors" acted like they knew
what they were doing. In any halfway decent play you'd rehearse the
actors, wouldn't you?
Until these factors are addressed, this so-called autopsy film should be
regarded as nothing more than a curiosity. Without real analysis, it's
self-evident weaknesses more than justify branding it a HOAX.
Paul B. Thompson
From: stlnchld@ix.netcom.com (Stolen Child )
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Alien Autopsy Thoughts
Date: 29 Aug 1995 11:16:44 GMT
First, the show WAS entertaining. To sit and watch thinking MAYBE this
is for real was too incredible. But to see it on something like the
FOX network, made it less credible... The same network that seems to
try to shove UFO stories down us via "Encounters" has outdone them
all with this film. Somehow, I smell television series something along
the lines of "X Files".
Regardless, it's either fake or real. If it's fake, someone has a
lot of explaining to do. If it's real, a HELLUVA lot of someones
have explaining to do. I believe that something happened in Roswell
in '47, too many people were there, too many people saw things...it's
the story that won't die. It's been mentioned that there's no way
the cameraman could walk away with this film, keep it for nearly
50 years then just release it. If it was real, you'll never find
this cameraman, he's already dead.
SC
From: magus@hassop.demon.co.uk (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: ROSWELL FOOTAGE IS PATHETIC!
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:43:58 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE
....................
cb566@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Peter Hamilton) wrote:
>The weighing/labeling/inspecting the organs was a little suspect,
>however.... I don't know what film you saw... but I clearly saw a rib cage
>Also, how the hell could you make a judgment on the authenticity of the
>blood when you saw it in black and white?
Well you must have seen a version of the footage denied to the rest of us humble
mortals, because I did not see any rib cage either. Neither was there any remains of
such a rib cage or ribs in sight having been removed.
As Dr West *another* forensic pathologist stated: The blood flow from the incisions
was not what he would expect. And...*please* let us not have any more comments about
ALIEN blood acting differently etc. The hoaxers have seen fit to give the corpse a
fanny, a liver, eyeballs, ears, 2 sets of arms and hands, so why should the blood be
different?
When the chest and abdomen were fully expressed, there were no visible signs of any
supporting rib cage, it just looked like thick latex rubber which was self
supporting.
Frank Kauffman, the american 'secret service' guy who saw the removal of the bodies
from the crash, states that they do not bear any resemblance to what he saw. He
cannot prove anything he says either and mysteriously, just like the cameraman,
despite telling the world of the Roswell crash, is not willing to divulge his role in
the secret service, because of his oath. More insults to the intelligence!
And let us not forget, as this writer has been saying for the last month, Shell's
so-called "Test" cannot be accepted as it is not on actual footage being shown.
"Consistent" is not good enough and will not stand the test of scrutiny by the
scientific community.
Santilli has also informed this writer at the Press conference in Sheffield, that NO
more film would be made available for testing.
Santilli has also stated on TV and at the conference that Channel four was one of the
many TV stations involved in 'Millions of Dollars' worth of 'research' into the
footage, yet Channel four has stated clearly that Santilli has *not* or *will not*
provide any film for analysis OR produce the cameraman. I cannot speak for the FOX
film, but I can imagine the verdict is the same.
Channel four ALSO saw the words VIDEO on the edge of the control panels, now is that
not amazing? Can we remember all those insulting comments I received about being the
ONL;Y one to see them? That I was *not* at the conference? All these headed by Mr
James Easton who then began to give us some technical reasons
why the words video should appear on a film.
.........................
As this writer has said before and says now, and will continue to say in the future.
1. As predicted the call of "Wait and See" has only served one purpose and that
was for Santilli. The Video cannot produce evidence, it is *not* evidence and
never will be evidence!
2. There will be no further ongoing tests that will be acceptable to the scientific
community, the cameraman will die or disappear and the film will be sold
or lost in a fire or be withheld from testing due to the fact that it is too
valuable to cut frames off. How convenient.
3. The Roswell Crash and this autopsy film are two SEPARATE incidents
and the autopsy film is a fake, albeit a good one and although Santilli
may jibe from his safe battlements, waving the reel of the film "You
cannot prove it is a hoax, because I won't let you" and we at the bottom
with the castle surrounded and under siege, say "We can but you will
not let us". The matter will stay in stalemate infinitum
Let us not forget however, the immortal words of Santilli on the TV
"*OUR* cameraman does *not* say they are aliens, he just calls them FREAKS"
This whole affair is pathetic!
.....................
Kevin O'Crean
From: Dick Allgire
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: FOX ROSWELL AUTOPSY SHOW
Date: 29 Aug 1995 07:30:34 GMT
Organization: Pacific Information eXchange, Inc.
Hollywood's best admitted they could not even fake that autopsy today,
let alone back in 1947! The pathologists said it was real. That was an
alien. The film is real. It is the proof we have been waiting for.
Now, the tricky part. How was it released and WHY? I believe the
coverup got out of hand and the government has been struggling for years
(decades) to figure out how to admit FLYING SAUCERS ARE REAL without
freaking everyone out.
If the government officially released the film, no denying its reality,
it would be MAJOR NEWS around the world, lead story on Rather, Jennings,
CNN, etc. and would be too traumatic for some people.
But this way, it was shown only on FOX. I have seen no other mention on
other media. I believe the govenment released it through this cameraman,
used him or allowed him to be the conduit. That way they left room for
doubt. Some will accept it, others will be able to deny it.
It was brilliant, how they cushioned the impact. Now it will become
part of the consciousness, and a little more and a little more will be
released.
When the "OFFICIAL" word comes many of us will say "so what?" we've
known it all along.
But that film WAS REAL.
THE TRUTH IS COMING OUT AT LAST.
From: mad@interaccess.com (Michael De Bernardi)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: THE FILM
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:18:24 -0500
Organization: Institute for Ontological Studies
Having seen the little footage that was aired tonite alongside the
professional opinions of people who seemed to be qualified, I will
officially go on record as saying that I believe the film is authentic.
Thus, we have seen a being from somewhere else.
FOX certainly made a case in no uncertain terms that the film has much
more evidence in favor of its being real. Of course, this could have been
a ploy to get as much money and transmedia coverage as possible in the
face of a sinking ship, but I think it just as likely that this is part
of the "break it slowly" plan of the gov't and/or Illuminati :)
I'm pretty blown away at this point in the night, and I can't help
noticing how meandering and desperate the few responses we've heard from
the other side have been.
Wow.
From: Steve Paraka
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: THE FILM
Date: 29 Aug 1995 23:17:49 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester
I agree with you... even with the limited footage that they did
show, after watching I can come to no other conclusion other
than this film is the real thing, and most importantly that we
are _not_ alone in the universe.
consider the implications of what I've just said... There is
life on other worlds and it has been and still is visiting this
planet -- AND if the film was indeed filmed by a military
officer, then the government has known it all along.
so, the question we must all ask ourselves is this: what
happens next? Is the rest of the population ready to accept
the notion that life exists outside of this solar system?
Will the government come clean? Will it wash its hands of the
entire roswell incident and tell us what happpened? If done
properly, this can be achieved with a minimal amount of
embarrassment. Just say that it was all national security and
that we were trying to reverse engineer their technology so
that we could gain an advantage over the Soviet Union -- or
some other bullshit like that...
the thing that I am certain of is that my heart goes out to the
survivors of the Roswell crash... imagine being light years
away from home when your ship crash lands on an alien planet,
and the first thing your rescuers do is hit you over the head
with a rifle!! What a sad statement about humanity!! I grieve
with the families of those who lost their loved ones in the
Roswell crash.
[--===> sTevE pAraKa <===--]
From: dan@frezza.org (Dan Frezza)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: "Autopsy -- Fact or Fiction?"
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 03:51:57 GMT
Organization: Rust Net - High Speed Internet in Detroit 810-642-2276
This evening at 8:00 pm. Fox network here in the Detroit Metro Area
presented the program "Autopsy -- Fact or Fiction?" for one hour.
It was fascinating to watch and listen to the narration by Jonathan
Frakes. The program, in my opinion, was well done. Whether it is
real or not, needs to proved in the long run.
However, what I am very interested in hearing, later on, whether more
people will come out and speak about the Roswell Incident. Especially
the cameraman, if he so choses to reveal his identity.
I believe the program will give more people, who have kept silent for
so long, a reason to come forth and tell all, if that is the case.
Also, Congressman Schiff needs to be further congratulated for hanging
his neck out on this film. I believe the GAO Report on Roswell this
past July, will also create a stronger need for further
investigations, and perhaps, a congressional investigation, into the
Roswell Incident.
All in all, it was a very interesting program. However, I do wish
more of the Autopsy could have been shown and also, the B&W shots of
the Debris site.
-- Dan Frezza
dan@frezza.org
From: Chuck McCorkle
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: The ONE FLAW in the "Alien Autopsy" film!
Date: 29 Aug 1995 03:50:32 GMT
Organization: South Carolina SuperNet, Inc.
I want to believe it's real, just as most do on this newsgroup, but...I
think the weakest link in the whole scenario is the cameraman thing.
Let's face it, the government _knows_WHO_ they sent there to do the
filming. The cameraman could hide from the public at large, but he
_couldn't_ hide from the government.
Mr. Santilli (sp?) implied that the man was concerned about the tax issue
on the income that he made by selling the film. But there is no way the
guy could keep the knowledge from the powers that be. If he is the real
cameraman, _THEY_ KNOW WHO HE IS...
I believe that there was a real alien UFO crash at Roswell, and that
autopsies probably were done...and filmed. But I'm not convinced that
this is the real thing.
I personally have had the pleasure of meeting several UFO abductees. I
spoke with one tonight after the FOX broadcast, and she told me that the
most striking difference between the aliens that she and others in her
support group had seen and the one on the "autopsy" film was the presence
of _muscle_tone_. All the aliens that she and others have seen have very
wispy/long limbs that are distinctly _without_ muscle tone. Although
there are generally seven different types of aliens familar to abductees,
this one does not fit _any_ of the seven descriptions.
She feels that the US government faked the film to get us ready for the
upcoming disclosure of the reality of aliens. But why would they fake
the film if they possessed the real thing?
Another possibility is that the film _is_ real, and the government wants
it to be shown to the public. In this scenario they would actually
suggest to the cameraman that he contrive a way to get the film into the
hands of an influential person. This way he would be protected from
retaliation by the government.
Seems to me that this would be the only case wherein the cameraman could
benefit by remaining anonymous. If the story put forth by Mr. Santilli
were really true, the best thing the cameraman could do would be to go
public. As it stands now, (and if the film were actually real...) the
government bad guys could easily nail him without the rest of the world
knowing what happened.
I donno...I was just thinking aloud...what do YOU think?
Chuck
From: aturner@Direct.CA (Allan Turner)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: The ONE FLAW in the "Alien Autopsy" film!
Date: 29 Aug 1995 08:01:54 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.
In article <41U2Q8$JLI@NEWS.SCSN.NET>, Chuck McCorkle says:
>I donno...I was just thinking aloud...what do YOU think?
>
>Chuck
>
Well, I agree that whoever in the U.S. government was aware
of the camermans identity and of the fact that he had further tapes
(if this was documented) would normally have done something. It
just seems unusual.
But there are other things to consider - here are some of
the obvious ones:
1: The cameraman only kept some of the tapes - those that required
special processing. The rest should be in the possesion of the U.S
government, if they exist. Certainly one tape would be easier to
fake than hours of tape. What of the tapes of the live aliens? If
they could be acquired, it would prove it would be MUCH more difficult
to fake.
2: The Department of Defense, Department of Energy, FBI, CIA, and
the White House Office of Science and Technology potentially are guilty
of disobeying the General Accounting Office's request for secret
and public documents relating to the Roswell incident. - If such
evidence exists.
The way I see it, the only good ways to validate the film
properly would be to find the cameraman, or to have the other tapes
mentioned in the documentary released by the U.S. government. This would
clear up whether it was fake or fiction. At least paper documentation
should be more available whether weather balloon or UFO.
Sound good?
Dave Turner -- aturner@Direct.ca
From: jde1@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Ennis )
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: The ONE FLAW in the "Alien Autopsy" film!
Date: 29 Aug 1995 09:54:51 GMT
Let me make sure I understand this...
According to the cameraman, he tried and tried to get someone in
Washington to take/come get the film he kept of this Top Top Top Secret
deal, but nobody in Washington would do anything.
Yeah, that's what I thought they said. How much sense does that make to
you???
From: jmalis@tiac.net (John Charles Malis)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Fox's Alien Autopsy: Fact of Fiction.
Date: 29 Aug 1995 03:21:39 GMT
I wish a network with credibility would have showed that Alien Autopsy show
other than Fox. Nightline would have been good but not Fox. At anyrate, I saw
the show and IMO it's a fake. Although, strange as it may seem, I felt that
the witnesses were more convincing than the film! Female tears always seem to
get to me, Ahh well. I was wishing for the debris film to be shown as well.
Funny that nothing ever tried to come back for the dead bodies. Has anyone
ever asked the question "How could the UFO have crashed in the first place"?
I mean "Whaaaa haaapend"? Did the wayback machine go "POOFF"!?? What were the
boxes the aliens were holding? It's not entirely impossible to get ahold of
some old film from 1967 and actually film a staged sceen. Blood always looks
real in black and white. Pity to come a billion miles only to crash and burn.
Then to have your head bashed in for a possession of yours while your buddy
watches. I hope these aliens were not the last of a dying breed who came here
for help. Not in that era boyz. No way. Anyrate what say you?
Malis.
Return-Path: skaeser@cais.com
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 07:04:32 -0400
To: "Joshua Shapiro"
From: skaeser@cais.cais.com (Steven W. Kaeser)
Subject: Re: Alien Photos
{snip} ..........
>
>I am sure you have seen various new images we have put up recently, also
>someone posted that Fox will be showing addition footage on Monday,
>Sept. 4th at 9P EDT. Who knows where this will all lead .........
>
>Joshua
>
You got that right. This film business is far from over. I'm waiting for
more information on this, but I have been in contact with Bob Shell, who is
working with Santilli and FOX in dating the film. It turns out that FOX has
normal profits motives driving this endeavor, and has been playing with
their data somewhat. Bob explained in his correspondence:
====begin====
>At present I am giving a 95% probability that the film was manufactured,
>exposed and processed in 1947.
>
>I hope to have that up to 100% shortly when some additional tests are
>completed.
>
>95% wasn't good enough for FOX, and when I refused to make it any higher, I
>ended up on the proverbial "cutting room floor".
>
>My friend Bruce Maccabee was also interviewed for the program, but they didn't
>like what he said either, and so he wasn't on the program.
>
>Then they wasted all that time with the bullshit about the private detective.
>They know who the cameraman is and where he is. This was pure hype to get
>people to watch the sequel, where they can announce "CAMERAMAN FOUND!!". For
>the same reason, they showed none of the debris or tent footage, and only about
>1/4 of the autopsy. Saving this so they can say "NEVER BEFORE SEEN FILM
>FOOTAGE" when they run the sequel during ratings season!
>
>My father worked in TV until he retired, so I know how they do things!!!!
>
>Bob
>
=====end=====
If they are showing additional footage on a simple follow up program on the
4th, that would be interesting. However, I would suspect that a much larger
presentation is in the works.
Keep your eyes on the skies,
and your hands on your wallet.
Steve
