ALIEN AUTOPSY' FILM GETS DISSECTED

Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:12:52 -0400
Source: James Easton
If it's of interest, this is a copy of the response sent to Art Levine. Best wishes, James.
WWW; http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/

The Microsoft-NBC-TV web site features an article by Art Levine, entitled, "'Alien Autopsy'" film gets dissected".

It's a interesting and provocative article, which uses as a basis the conclusions reached by researcher Kal Korff.

The full article can be found at URL:

http://www.msnbc.com

This is a response to the claims featured in that article.

Korff's claims cover several points and I would like to address them in turn.

The Frames.

It's claimed that "Three consecutive frames from the alien autopsy footage show what is known as "jump cutting," which proves that the film has been edited and manipulated. Real motion picture footage does not have transition frames".

Theresa Carlson, a MUFON member from Minnesota, has perhaps analysed the footage in more detail than anyone. Of particular importance is the fact that Theresa has had a first generation copy to work with. On 25 November, 1995, on the CompuServe MUFON forum, Ray Santilli publicly acknowledged Theresa's work on the footage and asked, "Would you like a Beta SP dub taken from the first generation master of the film copy? It's what we give to broadcasters, it would be a great deal better than any VHS".

As I remarked at the time, a strange offer if Ray knew the footage was no more than a clever special effect.

Theresa noticed the overlapping frames, but she took her research a stage further than Kal Korff's, she looked for an explanation.

Again on the MUFON forum, Theresa commented to Ray Santilli, "there are some questions I need to ask to hopefully makes some sense of some anomalous artefacts that appear on the video. These you can probably answer yourself, or ask for me. Was the transfer done directly from the original 16mm film stock to a PAL master video? Or were there other steps in between there?"

Santilli confirmed that, "Parts of the film were very poor in quality therefore as mentioned there was some enhancement, with regard to contrast and brightness, if you tell me which frame I may be able to refer back and check. In any event the Beta you have is a dupe from a 2 inch master taken from the film".

Les Johnstone, a forum subscriber, asked Ray if he meant 1 inch and Ray confirmed that he did, "I am not technical and confused it with audio multi-track which we use (2 inch)".

In private correspondence, Theresa explained to me that, "The fact that there was another step between the 16mm film and the beta was important because it gives a reason for the double exposures to be in the film. When images are transferred between different speeds of media the missing frames have to be made up for. For example going from 16mm which runs at 24 frames per second to a PAL master tape which runs at 25 frames per second, an extra frame has to be added every second of running time. This can be achieved in one or two ways. A frame can be repeated, as an exact duplicate of a frame, the video transfer people call these 'dropped' frames, or a transition frame can be created which basically makes a double exposure of the frames on either side of it. Both of these methods appear in the video. With each transfer of the images to a new type of media, more of these can appear. And remember, the NTSC version is 30 frames per second, so an additional 5 frames per second have to be added".

On Kal Korff's claims, Theresa responds, "Kal is correct, this kind of an artefact does not appear on reel film. But what he forgot to consider is that the frames he was looking at were not film but were video frames. What I did was try to recreate the artefact by transferring first from film to video. Then by transferring between video formats of different FPS speed. In both cases the artefact was recreated. So, simply put, the artefact is a normal result of image transfers between various image media".

Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug Magazine and who has been closely involved with the footage story, also confirms that the overlapping frames are a "normal artefact", resulting from "multiple generation copies".

Some overlapping frames are also visible in the "debris" footage, included in the "Roswell: The Footage" video. This is the video released by Ray Santilli's own company and which includes all of the "raw" footage which has been made public. Relatively few copies were apparently sold via the exclusive mail order offer and as it's the only video which contains the footage as it was intended to be released and the only video which helpfully documents each reel, it's perhaps surprising how many people claim to have seen all of the evidence.

The Film Set.

It's also claimed that, "like on all sets, you never see a fourth wall".

There may not be four walls on Korff's video, but there are four walls visible in the full footage, first generation copy.

Theresa Carlson confirmed, "the fourth wall is visible in a few frames, at the edge of the frames, during one of the abdominal dissection scenes. This particular one may not show up well on all TV sets as some sets crop the edges, but if someone is carrying out analysis they use either a studio monitor, full screen projection, or a computer, which all show the full frame. It shows up again during a few frames in the head dissection and I think it's that one which can be seen easily on any TV, although the image is blurred".

The Reflected Studio Light.

It's further claimed that computer enhancement reveals a standard set lamp with umbrella reflected in the black eye covering.

As the data provided by any such enhancement may be open to debate and subjective interpretation, it would perhaps be sensible to see this evidence before casting judgement.

However, Theresa Carlson again demonstrates the thoroughness of her research; "What he may not know is that old surgery rooms used round lights with the umbrella reflector also (they are still in use today in places). These lights were on a poseable aperture, so the doctors could aim the light where he needed it. There is a sequence in the film where it appears that the doctor reaches up and moves the light. You have to watch the shadows to see it because the camera is pointing down toward the body, but the doctors arm goes up out of frame and the shadows shift slightly".

The Labels.

The writing on the labels is claimed to be "distinctly German".

This style of writing was in fact taught as the standard during my formative years and I've seen it used on many occasions in the UK. It's a formal "script" style of "proper" English.

I understand this style was also taught in the U.S.

It's unquestionably not distinctly German and this is a surprising claim.

The additional claim that the writing "matches" Volker Spielberg's should perhaps be viewed with some scepticism until this is proven beyond dispute.

It's further claimed that, "the eagle seal is from the U.S. Department of Defense, which did not exist in 1947".

This is correct.

Up to a point..

A friend in the US went to the trouble of assisting my research into the stamp shown on the photocopies of the alleged canister labels. He spoke to several people at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Historical Division provided a copy of the following document:

Joint Army and Air Force DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY AND THE AIR FORCE

Bulletin No. 23 Washington 25, D.C., 22 August 1949

SEAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.-1. The following memorandum from the Secretary of Defense, 15 August 1949, is published for the information and guidance of all concerned:

In accordance with the provision of Section 202 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended by Section 5 of Public Law 216, 81st Congress, August 10, 1949, and with the approval of the President, the seal of the National Military Establishment is hereby redesignated as the seal for the Department of Defense with the change of designation. The seal is described as follows:

An American eagle is displayed facing to the right. Wings are horizontal. The eagle grasps three crossed arrows and bears on its breast a shield whose lower two-thirds carries alternating white and red stripes and whose upper third is blue. Above the eagle is an arc of thirteen stars with alternating rays. Below the eagle is a wreath of laurel extending to the eagle's right and wreath of olive extending to the eagle's left. On an encircling band is the inscription "Department of Defense" and "United States of America."

When the seal is displayed in color, the background is to be of medium blue with the eagle and wreath in natural colors and the arrows, stars, and rays of gold. The encircling band is to be dark blue with gold edges and letters in white.

The American bald eagle, long associated with symbolism representing the United States of America and its military establishment, has been selected as an emblem of strength. In facing to the right, the field of honor is indicated. The eagle is defending the United States, represented by the Shield of thirteen pieces. The thirteen pieces are joined by the blue chief, representing the Congress. The rays and stars above the eagle signify glory, while the three arrows are collectively symbolic of the three component parts of the Department of Defense. The laurel stands for honors received in combat defending the peace represented by the olive branch.

LOUIS JOHNSON
Secretary of Defense

The existing seal of the National Military Establishment was therefore redesignated as the seal for the new Department of Defense.

English researcher Robert Irving confirmed the origin of the National Military Establishment seal:

"Alfred Goldberg, Historian at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Pentagon, has kindly provided the following correspondence. It is supported by the reply I've received from the National Archives and Records Administration, in response to my request under the FOIA".

>From Alfred Goldberg, OSD Historian:

"The enclosed documents should answer most of your questions about the Department of Defense Seal. The original seal was for the National Military Establishment. It was changed to the Department of Defense in August 1949. The original seal could not have come into existence until some time in October 1947 or later".

Sincerely, Alfred Goldberg, OSD Historian

Enclosures...

Immediate Release, Press and Radio - Dated 8 October, 1947

"President Approves Seal for National Military Establishment and Flag for Secretary of Defense."

"President Truman today approved the designs submitted by the Secretary of Defense for the seal of the office of the National Military Establishment and for the Secretary's flag."

"The seal is of the following design: An American eagle is displayed facing to the right. Wings are horizontal. The eagle grasps three crossed arrows and bears on it's breast a shield whose lower two-thirds carries alternating white and red stripes and whose upper third is blue. Above the eagle is an arc of thirteen stars with alternating rays. Below the eagle is a wreath of laurel extending to the eagle's right and a wreath of olive extending to the eagle's left. On an encircling band is the inscription "National Military Establishment" and "United States of America"."

[...]

"The preparation of the final designs was accomplished by the Heraldic Section of the Office of the Quartermaster General of the Army. Mr Arthur E. Dubois, authority on Heraldry in that office, had general supervision of this work. Mrs James Forrestal and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air, John Nicholas Brown, contributed materially in the department of the basic theme and color scheme. Also assisting in this work were Miss Elizabeth Will of the Heraldic Section and personnel in the Office of the Secretary of Defense."

And...

Memorandum For The President - Dated 3 October, 1947

"I am forwarding, for your approval, a proposed Seal of Office for the National Military Establishment. I should, also, like your approval of the proposed flag for the Secretary of Defense, which you will note is merely a replica of the central theme of the Seal. There is also attached a written description of the proposed Seal and flag, and an heraldic interpretation."

Respectfully, James Forrestal.

Then, handwritten: "10-7-47 Both approved' with the signature of President Harry Truman. [End]

The stamp on the labels may not in fact be an official seal. It's not possible to confirm this as the writing which identifies the organisation represented is too blurred to be legible. The emblem is however that of the NME and subsequently the DoD.

That the stamp probably dates from sometime after October 1947, has been known for some time. This is obviously later than the date of the claimed filming, but who's to say when the labels were stamped.

There are a number of plausible scenarios.

>From what is legible, the name of the organisation represented on the stamp does not appear to be either "NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT" or "DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE" and perhaps the "best fit", is "CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY".

The National Security Act of 1947, a Congressional act signed into law on 26 July, 1947, created the National Military Establishment, composed of the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, an independent Department of the Air Force, a Secretary of Defense (but not a department), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council.

The National Security Act became effective on 18 September, 1947, but the CIA did not have their own seal until...

"Section 2 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 provided for a seal of office for CIA. The design of the seal was approved and set forth on 17 February 1950 in President Truman's Executive Order 10111".

It's conceivable that during this lengthy intervening period, the CIA had a requirement to identify its property and could have used a stamp which bore the name of the CIA and the emblem of the National Military Establishment.

Korff believes "This is a Ufologist's nightmare", but almost 2 years later, his primary evidence for a hoax is found to be fatally flawed.

The transition frames had already been researched and explained as a known artefact, an umbrella reflector would not be out of place and there may even be evidence of its use in the footage, there are four walls visible in the footage, the writing on the labels is a formal English/American script, not distinctly German, and the stamp on the labels could in fact have been imprinted in 1947.

There is no evidence that any archive film exists and the default explanation remains that the footage is a quite exceptional special effect.

But there's still no proof whatsoever that some 20 minutes of extraordinary footage has been hoaxed, no proof of who planned it, who scripted it, who filmed it, who took part in it, who edited it, who any of these people are. As another attempt to prove it is a hoax, or recreate even part of it, falls well short, maybe that's what Kal Korff should really find scary.

Back to UFO news update menu

All rights reserved to WUFOC and NÄRKONTAKT. If you reprint or quote any part of the content, you must give credit to: WUFOC, the free UFO-alternative on the Internet, http://www.wufoc.com