CNI News Presents


ISCNI*Flash 1.12 - September 1, 1995




Welcome to ISCNI*Flash. In the wake of the August 28 television special, "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction," featuring glimpses of the famous and controversial "Santilli Film Footage" of an alleged alien body, this issue of the ISCNI*Flash offers a number of differing opinions on the film, the body, and the controversy in general:


CONTROVERSY GROWS AS "AUTOPSY" FILM GOES PUBLIC

[This is an edited version of a bulletin dated August 27, sent to ISCNI by British researcher George Wingfield.]

The long-awaited [first] public screening of Ray Santilli's film footage, allegedly shot following the crash of a flying saucer near Roswell in 1947, took place at the BUFORA UFO Conference at Sheffield on August 19th. Reaction to the film, as before, was very mixed but a majority of those present either withheld judgement or opined that it must be a hoax.

The footage screened was principally a replay of the autopsy sequence first shown in London on May 5th. Some of those unfamiliar with such dissections showed evident revulsion or gasped aloud as the strange "alien" corpse was carved up and opened out by a surgeon clad in white protective clothing. Clearly the body was not long dead at the time of autopsy since there were no obvious signs of decomposition and a slight trickle of blood resulted from each scalpel cut. Few supported the thesis that this was a cleverly constructed plastic dummy stuffed with offal to simulate internal organs.

Appended after the autopsy was a brief display of the panels bearing supposed alien characters that have been referred to previously. The suggestion by some skeptics that the symbols spell out the words "VIDEO O TV" requires a huge leap of the imagination and this surely derives from some madder realm of the Internet. The symbols are not very impressive and some do resemble Greek characters or others, possibly from ancient middle eastern script.

Nor are the "control panels" very convincing, two of which [were] held up for display by a man whose face is not visible. These thick panels each contain two hand impressions for hands with six digits: five fingers and a thumb. In semi-circular grooves below the position of the fingertips there appear to be control buttons and there are also separate depressions with a button for each thumb. Further longer arc-shaped grooves with additional buttons run parallel to and beyond the fingertip grooves. Other control buttons or sensors are seen within the hand impressions below where palm and wrist would fit. These "control panels" look to be clumsy "low technology" stuff such as might have been thought up for a 1950s sci-fi B movie.

Meanwhile the Internet rumour mill has gone into overdrive in the attempts by some groups to discredit the Santilli film. One example of deliberately false information put out for this purpose has been the postings of a certain "Kevin O'Crean" of "Hassop Cottage, England". In his latest bluster (August 18th) this "O'Crean" claims that BUFORA has officially disavowed the Santilli film and "stated categorically on World TV that they consider it a hoax." An alternative version of this malicious claim, which also appears to be circulating on the Internet, is that "the head of BUFORA" stated on CNN that the Roswell film was a hoax made in Brazil 6 or 7 years ago and that Santilli knows this. Further, "the head of BUFORA" was alleged to have stated that he didn't believe that aliens had ever made contact with earth and that UFOs didn't exist as extraterrestrial vehicles.

Much of this story is completely untrue. It relates to what was said by Philip Walton (who is a BUFORA functionary) and is solely his personal opinion. In no way does it represent BUFORA's official position. Walton is not the head of BUFORA; that is John Spencer. Philip Mantle, who is BUFORA's Director of Investigations, and who organised the Sheffield conference, confirmed on August 25 that there had been no "official" change of position either by BUFORA or himself. The claim about the Brazilian sci-fi film, he said, was an unproven rumour and has no basis in fact, as also the charge that Santilli knows that this is the case.

Skepticism regarding the film footage is understandable, but much of that which we have heard is based solely on speculation and basic denial that aliens could possibly exist. Santilli maintains, correctly, that so far no one has been able to prove that the film is a fake.

My own position: The film is either a cleverly prepared deception, or it is the genuine article. It is obviously too soon to reach a definite verdict until a lot further testing of the film has been done and the cameraman (who we know exists) has been thoroughly questioned.

Michael Hesemann [German UFO investigator and filmmaker], who spoke about the Santilli film at the Sheffield conference, expressed a similar viewpoint. He said:

"This film may very well be authentic. I don't say this film is definitely the real thing. I only say that everything we checked out checked out in favor of it. Indications that it may be a hoax didn't check out. We have more indications that it may be the real thing than we have against it."

He went on to say that he had never found a more open and cooperative guy in any motion picture company than Ray Santilli. Michael has spent hours talking to Santilli and getting information from him about the film and its origins. He has also recently travelled to New Mexico to do research on the spot which has turned up a number of new factors. Michael's research contrasts starkly with the strident speculation by many of those voices on the Internet who have never bothered to talk to Ray Santilli, let alone travel to New Mexico.

George Wingfield


A SURGEON'S ANALYSIS OF THE SANTILLI "ALIEN AUTOPSY"

[ISCNI*Flash thanks Joachim Koch for sending the following article describing his analysis of Ray Santilli's "alien autopsy" film. Dr. Koch is a practicing surgeon in Germany and is a co-founder of the International Roswell Initiative.]

by Joachim Koch
English version edited by Kent Jeffrey

The aim of this article is to provide some medical background to demonstrate that there exists the possibility that an autopsy was not performed on an "alien being" in the film shown by Ray Santilli. As a general surgeon in Germany, I feel qualified to write about this subject. I practice in a large (700 bed) hospital in Berlin-Spandau, Germany. During the past 18 years I have seen many seriously injured individuals from all sorts of accidents. I have also attended numerous autopsies.

Glenn Dennis, the mortician at Ballard's Funeral Home in Roswell], said he was told by [a] nurse who witnessed the autopsies [that] the preliminary autopsy was performed in the Air Force hospital at Roswell, and the bodies had four fingers, unlike the body in the Santilli film, which had six.

If a preliminary autopsy in Roswell had been performed and the final dissection (in the Santilli film) was done in another place, perhaps Fort Worth or Wright Field, then sutures placed during the first autopsy should have been visible during the second autopsy shown in the film, but they were not. In fact, the "doctors" in the film are seen making the initial cuts. The body in the film, then, could not have been one of the bodies that the nurse in Roswell saw being autopsied.

Most, if not all, who viewed the film were puzzled by the odd outfits of the "doctors." What were these suits for? They could not have been for protection from radiation, because in [other] film shown by Santilli, "doctors" were seen examining a body without protective suits. Moreover, in the recovery of an alien craft and its crew, testing for radiation would certainly have been one of the first steps, but Jesse Marcel, Sr., has testified that no radiation was detected at the crash site.

The suits could not have been for protection from the odor of a decaying body. A suit for that purpose would have required breathing apparatus. Nor could the suits have been protection against unknown bacteria or viruses. In that case again, some sort of breathing apparatus would have been required to guard against airborne organisms.

So, it is likely that the strange outfit worn by the doctors had a different purpose -- to conceal their identities.

It is hard to understand why the autopsy was not performed under better lighting conditions, why only two "doctors"were in attendance, and why only one camera was operating amateurishly.

An autopsy of an alien would have been an extraordinary event. It may have been performed in a large room or auditorium so that many pathologists could have been present. It would have been performed very carefully and methodically, perhaps over several weeks' time. Careful motion picture filming and many slides and/or still photos would have resulted. Conditions would have been ideal to facilitate the best photographic records possible.

Nothing done by the film's "doctors" seems to indicate that they were aware of handling something of extraordinary value to mankind. The whole scene looked unpleasant and somehow illegal.

[The film showed] a few features supposedly common to those of a "real alien," such as dark almond-shaped eyes, a larger than normal head, a small mouth, a small nose, and smaller than normal ears in an abnormal location. Also seen in the film were features that are not commonly reported characteristics of aliens -- six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.

I am not one who believes that alien lifeforms from other planets/worlds/dimensions must be different from human forms. In my opinion, they could look very similar to those on earth. We do not have to assume, however, that a six-toed being is an alien from outer space. Members of our own human species here on earth occasionally have six toes.

In medical terms, having more than five digits on the hands or feet is a genetic variation called "polydactylism." Polydactylism is seen in several different medical syndromes. A syndrome is a group of symptoms that collectively characterize a disease or abnormal condition; nearly all are named by the men or women who first describe them.

There are approximately 34 syndromes in which polydactylism of the fingers is present, and approximately 36 syndromes in which polydactylism of the toes is found. In approximately 12 syndromes hexadactylism (six digits) of the fingers is present, and 13 with hexadactylism of the toes.

Note the description of one syndrome in particular: Extreme growth of the head; widespread eyes and deep eye sockets; a broad-based nose; increased growth of the base of the skull; a crescent-shaped skin fold at the inner upper eyelid; mongoloid axis of the eyelids; no hair between the eyebrows; lowering of the outer ear, which is small; small lips; lower jaw underdeveloped; low birth weight; short length at birth (dwarf like); unproportioned growth (dyschondroplasia); multiple variations of the ribs, breastbone, hip, knee; malformations of inner organs possible; poly- and/or hexadactylism.

This description is not that of an alien, but of a human being who suffers from "C-syndrome," or in the American medical literature, from "Opitz trigonocephaly syndrome." Only a few cases of C-syndrome have ever been described formally, and these few died very young. Still, the description indicates the variation possible in humans.

Recently, those involved with the Santilli film have attempted to explain themselves and establish the legitimacy of the film in interviews and on the Internet. However, in my opinion, they have lost their chance to be taken seriously by not playing it straight from the start.

Serious researchers should not lend credibility to Santilli's case. Instead, they should insist on a scientific analysis of the film by independent researchers.

Joachim Koch Berlin, Aug 12, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg


EFFECTS EXPERT: SANTILLI ALIEN "VERY GOOD FAKE"

[The following letter was sent by Cliff Wallace of C-F-X Creature Effects, a British special effects company, to Graham Birdsall, editor of UFO Magazine (UK). This letter was dated Aug 16, 1995 and references a report written by C-F-X on or about August 3. This letter was forwarded to ISCNI*Flash by an ISCNI member who wishes to remain anonymous.]

Dear Mr. Birdsall,

As a company who specialise in special make up effects for films and television we've been following the great Roswell debate over the last few months with much interest. It occurred to us that if anyone was really qualified to judge whether the aliens in the film were faked it would be us. We would know the likely materials that the things would have had to have been constructed from, where to look for possible seam lines, etc. The chances are that if the alien(s) were faked that it would have been done by someone within our profession. Two weeks ago we were invited by Union Pictures to look at the Roswell footage.

We were shown all the footage that Santilli had released at that time. The autopsy footage that had been shown at the Museum of London and some footage of debris laid out on a table. We'd be very suprised if any other footage exists despite the claims of Mssrs. Santilli and Mantle. We certainly saw no footage of the crash site, the saucer, President Truman or more than one alien. Here for your interest are our observations on what we were shown -- this taken from our letter to Union Pictures Aug 3, 1995.

None of us were of the opinion that we were watching a real alien autopsy, or an autopsy on a mutated human which has also been suggested. We all agreed that what we were seeing was a very good fake body, a large proportion of which had been based on a lifecast. Although the nature of the film obscured many of the things we had hoped to see, we felt that the general posture and weighting of the corpse was incorrect for a body in a prone position and had more in common with a cast that had been taken in an upright position.

We did notice evidence of a possible moulding seam line down an arm in one segment of the film but were generally surprised that there was little other evidence of seaming which suggests a high degree of workmanship.

We felt that the filming was done in such a way as to obscure details rather than highlight them and that many of the parts of the autopsy that would have been difficult to fake, for example the folding back of the the chest flaps, were avoided, as was anything but the most cursory of limb movement. We were also pretty unconvinced by the lone removal sequence. In our opinion the insides of the creature did not bear much relation to the exterior where muscle and bone shapes can be easily discerned. We all agreed that the filming of the sequence would require either the use of two separate bodies, one with chest open, one with chest closed, or significant redressing of one mortal. Either way the processes involved are fairly complicated and require a high level of specialised knowledge.

On a more general note, we didn't feel that anything that we saw suggested that the material had been shot on 16 mm film. There seemed to be no evidence of scratches etc., that might be expected, and some of the camera movements suggested that the camera must have been fairly lightweight. Other than the body - which as we've said must have involved a considerable amount of time and effort - the other production values seemed positively poverty stricken. We were particularly unconvinced by the wreckage laid out on the table, and by the hand shaped control pods which seemed very crudely fashioned, and then of course there were the "VIDEO TV" heiroglyphs (the heiroglyphs on one particular piece of wreckage appeared immediately to form recognisable words). Once more we were more disappointed by what wasn't there -- again no verifiable personnel, etc."

Please feel free to reprint this letter or any parts of it...

All Best Wishes,

Cliff Wallace


"ALIEN AUTOPSY" ON TV -- ONE VIEWER'S OPINION

[Since nobody seems able to prove for sure whether the "alien autopsy" shown on FOX TV on August 28 (and often discussed in ISCNI*Flash) is a real autopsy of a real alien, a real autopsy of a (fake alien) unusual human, a fake autopsy of a fake alien, or something else altogether, the *Flash has decided to ask our Occasional Columnist of the Weird, the inimitable Bufo Calvin, to weigh in with an opinion. Well, why not?]

Commentary by Bufo Calvin

Boy, that ALIEN AUTOPSY: FACT OR FICTION show on Fox is a real puzzler!

Okay, how many of you thought it was a hoax? Wow, that's a lot. I wonder why Fox had such a hard time finding you guys for the show? No, that's not fair. They did put some people on who thought it was a fake... for about 5 seconds each. That may not have been their fault, though. There was an interesting tendency: people who said it wasn't a hoax would always give you specific reasons (my favorite was special effects expert Stan Winston talking about "drippage"), while those in favor of it being a hoax just said it was generally, without saying why. Stanton Friedman did say it didn't match what he had been told the Roswell aliens looked like. Some ufologists must feel like it's musical chairs and they've been left standing. Ray Santilli didn't show it to those guys first, so I think there might be some hurt feelings.

Still, at least Friedman argued from a reasonable point: it didn't match what eyewitnesses had told him. (Interestingly, the confirmatory eyewitnesses on the Fox show had "never seen the aliens." They were eyewitnesses, but to the debris, not the bodies). Quite a few people have argued backwards: "aliens don't look like that so it's not real." That's like the arguments against the famous Bigfoot film shot by Roger Patterson: "The only bipedal primate is Homo Sapiens, so it's not real." That's not science, guys: you don't get to eliminate the facts just because they don't fit the theory.

I think it's important to note that there was nothing in the film to show that it had anything to do with Roswell (or aliens, for that matter). If it was a real autopsy, the interior organs and body shape were definitely weird for a human, but nothing in the film says it was an alien.

Let me get to the crux of the matter, though. If you think it was a hoax, why do you think that? If I had asked you before the show what kind of validation you'd want [before you'd] believe you were seeing an alien autopsy, what would you have wanted? A pathologist's opinion? They used two top pathologists. Special effects guys? They had 'em. Camerapeople? They had that. You know me, I always want you to figure out why you believe what you believe. That's the only way you can judge the value of your beliefs.

This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird."



Thanks for reading the ISCNI*Flash!

Michael Lindemann
Editor



On October 1, 1996, ISCNI*Flash became CNI News.
CNI News is a subscription newsletter. For more
information, please click here.




^ What's New Search Cool Stuff
CNI News Contents Bookstore Subscribe



Webmaster: D. Oszuscik - - Design: L. Lowe - -Content: M. Lindemann


This page served times.