|
Michael
Hesemann, author of Beyond Roswell, investigates the controversial
alien autopsy footage.
Some
international researchers conclude that the Santilli 'Roswell'
footage is not a hoax. They claim that the alien in the autopsy
room was retrieved not from the Roswell UFO crash site but
from another, earlier crash near Socorro.
About
a year and a half ago, on 5th May 1995, the London-based film
producer Ray Santilli for the first time presented his alleged
alien autopsy footage to an audience of invited media representatives
and UFO researchers at the London Museum. Even before that
date, a very emotional debate had already started. Angry ufologists
had challenged Santilli to shut up or work together with them,
while others had claimed from the very beginning that the
film is a hoax just because it doesn't fit into their concept
of what happened in New Mexico in the summer of 1947.
Santilli's
marketing policy, his commercial exploitation of the film,
his ignorance in the UFO field and his violation of all the
unwritten protocols of the UFO community didn't find many
friends among ufologists, and quite soon many screamed "Hoax!"
without being able to prove anything. One researcher even
concluded, "There is no [16 mm] film and no cameraman",
after quoting page after page of all the rumours, second-
and third-hand information and inconsistencies among Santilli's
claims (or alleged claims), to prove that he was right from
the very beginning when he suspected a scam, because the being
on the autopsy table looked "too humanoid to be an extraterrestrial",
yet ignoring that this is exactly how most eyewitnesses describe
crashed ufonauts.1
Unfortunately,
those who searched for the truth, wherever it might be, were
few in number. Willing to listen to Santilli first, before
they judged and checked out the information they could get
before asking for more, were mainly Philip Mantle (UK), Bob
Shell (USA) and Michael Hesemann (Germany)-the International
Research Team (IRT)-joined by Maurizio Baiata and Roberto
Pinotti (Italy), Johannes Baron of Buttlar (Germany), Odd-Gunnar
Roed (Norway), Hanspeter Wachter (Switzerland), Col. Colman
VonKeviczky, Dr Bruce Maccabee, Joe Stefula, Lt. Col. W. C.
Stevens, Ted Loman, Robert Morning Sky, Llewellyan Wykel and
Dennis Murphy (USA), and others.
Let
me point out that we found Ray Santilli always very friendly,
helpful and cooperative although sometimes limited in his
actions by agreements with his business partners and the cameraman.
I wonder if any 'major international media corporation' would
ever have been even nearly as open to any reasonable research
approach as Mr Santilli indeed was. The following is a summary
of results from the IRT's first year of investigation.
The
cameraman
Yes, there is a cameraman. We located people, besides Santilli,
who had spoken to him over the phone: Gary Shoefield of Polygram,
Philip Mantle, John Purdie of Channel Four (UK) and the secretary
of David Roehring of Fox Network, USA. He is American, an
old man, and lives in Florida. He was in hospital when Gary
Shoefield wanted to meet him, and was coughing when Philip
Mantle had him on the phone. According to his story he had
polio as a child.2 Polio victims at
that time mostly walked with a limp. He could not have had
a bad hand, otherwise he could not have worked as a cameraman,
but maybe he had a bad leg. The movement of the cameraman
in the film indicates this, since he doesn't move smoothly.
Bob Shell enquired among senior US military cameramen if they
could remember a colleague from the 1940s with a bad leg.
They knew one. His name is Jack "X", and he is exactly
the age claimed for the Santilli cameraman: eighty-six.3
The
cameraman is not Jack Barnett-a name used originally by Santilli
to protect the identity of the true cameraman. Jack Barnett
worked for Universal News, filmed Elvis Presley at a high-school
concert in 1955 and died in 1969. Jack X did not work for
Universal, but filmed Elvis at another concert, an open-air
one, when the Universal cameramen were on strike.4 The cameraman
agreed to be interviewed by a major US TV network.5
In
April 1996 Bob Shell was contacted by the US Air Force following
an enquiry from President Clinton's scientific adviser, Dr
John Gibbons. The USAF Captain told Shell that they had located
footage from the same stock in their archives and verified
that at least part of the Santilli material is genuine, and
shows no dummy and no human. They knew the cameraman's name-Jack
X-but asked Shell to forward an address, since the military
records building in St Louis had had a fire and many records
had been lost. A search would be time-consuming and expensive.6
When
we asked for details about the crash site, we became convinced
that the cameraman indeed has an excellent knowledge of the
area in question. With Ray Santilli as the intermediary-and
Santilli did not know anything about the area in question
and insisted on calling Socorro "Sorocco"-he even
described a ruined bridge that we could locate only on our
third visit to the area. He knew exactly what he was talking
about.
Although
some have criticised the cameraman's technique in the autopsy
film, other military cameraman think this is exactly the way
they, too, would have filmed it.
"The
cameraman keeps moving to get out of the way of the surgeon
and keeps trying to get the best perspective. The job of an
army cameraman is to record a procedure on film, not to deliver
beautiful pictures. And that, here, is an adequate filmic
protocol," said Dr Roderick Ryan, US Navy cameraman during
the '40s and '50s who filmed many secret government projects
including the atomic tests on Bikini Atoll.7
"Among
these circumstances, no one could have made a better job...he
was not only a well-educated and experienced movie man, but,
additionally, in full knowledge of editing and production
of documentaries. Evidence: filming the autopsy activities
from various view angles," said Col. Colman VonKeviczky,
who studied at the UFA Film Academy in Berlin Babelsberg,
was head of the audiovisual division of the Royal Hungarian
General Staff, cameraman and director of the 3rd US Army at
Heidelberg and member of the audiovisual department of the
United Nations in New York.8
The
film stock
Careful study of stills made from the original film and high-quality
Betacam copies confirmed that the film was indeed shot on
16-mm material. The camera handling seen on the autopsy film
indicates the use of a small, lightweight camera with fixed
lenses (therefore, the out-of-focus close-ups), like the 16-mm
Bell & Howell Filmo Camera used by US military cameramen
in the '40s-the camera the cameraman claims he used.9
Leaders
of 16 mm film were sent to Kodak Hollywood, London and Copenhagen
and turned out to bear the symbols (a square and a triangle)
used by Kodak either in 1947 or in 1967.10
Two
segments with three frames each, one clearly showing the autopsy
room, were given to Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug magazine
and also a phototechnical consultant for the FBI and the US
courts. After a careful physical analysis, Shell confirmed
the segments to be pre-1956 16-mm film. In 1956 Kodak changed
its film-base from acetate-propionate to triacetate, and the
samples were clearly on acetate-propionate film. The film
type was Super XX-Panchromatic Safety Film, a high-speed film
used for indoor filming but which had a life-span of no more
than two years, when cosmic radiation would cause a 'fogging'
of the material. Shell is sure the film was exposed and developed
within two years. This, at least, dates the film as pre-1958.11
The
equipment & objects in the autopsy room
Everything in the film dates to the time in question. The
telephone is an AT&T model from 1946,12
and spiral cables had been optional since 1938 and standard
for US Army telephones.13 The wall clock
is a model on the market since 1938,14
and the microphone is a 1946 Sheer Bros mike.15
The table with the instruments was standard equipment for
a pathologist, as confirmed by Prof. Cyril Wecht, ex-President
of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.16
The bone hammer was not unusual; nor was the Bunsen burner
which, in autopsies, served the purpose of burning away body
fat.
The
body
The corpse on the autopsy table has been the subject of many
disputes as to whether it is a dummy, a girl with a genetic
disorder or, indeed, an alien. Nearly all special effects
(FX) experts concluded that it is certainly possible to fake
footage of a realistic-looking autopsy. There have been many
concerns about 'snuff' movies and the origin of the corpses
used in them. South America had been named as a possible origin,
but reports from there have indicated the use of very realistic
dummies. However, no one has found any evidence of special
effects being used in this autopsy film-although today, unquestionably,
nearly everything can be faked with the latest state-of-the-art
FX techniques.17
On
the other hand, pathologists and physicians from all over
the world who saw the film were pretty sure the body was not
a dummy, but actually a corpse-human or humanoid.
It
is indisputable that some of the characteristics of different
genetic disorders can be found in the being on the autopsy
table-mostly disorders such as Turner's syndrome or progeria,
combined with polydactylism (which is not a typical element
of Turner's syndrome, although possible in combination with
it) and other anomalies. This prompted a German dermatologist,
Dr T. Jansen of the Policlinic of the University of Munich,
to publish a study in a medical journal, trying to prove that
the body is that of a girl who died from a rare form of progeria.18
On the other hand, he forgot to explain why there could be
two girls with identical symptoms including polydactylism,
when progeria is so rare that there are only 20 cases worldwide.
Unfortunately, the only case of Turner's syndrome twins, although
obviously documented on film, was never published in the medical
literature.
Indeed,
Dr Jansen's 'findings' do not explain the extreme precautions
taken when the autopsy was performed, i.e., why would the
team have worn bio-hazard protection suits if the body had
a genetic disorder, and why would the being have been fitted
with black eye-lenses? Although Dr Jansen diagnosed a stroke
(common for progeria patients) as the cause of death, this
does not explain the damaged right leg, the broken and swollen
left leg, the cut-off right hand and a bruise at the left
temple with a possible bullet wound. Should we assume that
our creature broke its legs, cut its right hand and shot a
bullet in its head before it died from a stroke?
More
than that, Jansen's explanation for the missing navel couldn't
convince us, either. To quote Dr Jansen, "It's like if
you put up an umbrella: the unevenness disappears."19
On
the other hand, quite a number of pathologists concluded that
the being was not human at all, since its inner organs were
like nothing they had ever seen:
Prof.
Christopher Milroy, Home Office Pathologist, University of
Sheffield, UK: "Although a close-up of the brain was
shown, it was again out of focus. However, the appearance
was not that of a human brain."20
Prof.
Mihatsch, University of Basle, Switzerland: "As for the
organs removed, they could not be tallied with any human organs."21
Prof.
Cyril Wecht, Ex-President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
USA: "I can't place these structures in an abdominal
context... I find it difficult to bring in any connection
with the human body as I know it. The structure that must
be the brain, if it were a human being, does not look like
a brain...it does not seem to be a human being."22
Dr
Carsten Nygren, Oslo, Norway: "This is not a human brain.
It is...much too dark."23
Prof.
Pierluigi Baima Bollone, University of Turin, Italy: "When
we look at the inner organs of the body we find no single
organ that in any way resembles any human organ. The main
organ, which could be the liver, has neither the shape nor
the location of a human liver. The face of the alleged extraterrestrial
shows surprising anatomical features: very big ocular orbits,
a very flat nasal pyramid, a mouth somehow wide open...nevertheless,
the face is flat, there is no evidence of facial musculature
which is present in human beings and is responsible for the
large variety of facial expressions of the human species...
My overall impression is that we are dealing with a creature
that seems to belong to our species but is so clearly different
from us that it seems absurd to speculate about the similarity."24
There
was not a single physician or pathologist who, after watching
the full film, concluded it was a hoax or that the being on
the table was a dummy. They all agreed the corpse was of a
living, biological entity-human or not.
The
pathologists
According to the cameraman the autopsy was performed by "Dr
Bronk" and"Dr Williams".
Prof.
Dr Detlev Bronk (1897-1975) was no surprise, since his name
already appeared in the controversial "Majestic 12"
documents. He was Chairman of the National Research Council,
America's leading biophysicist and a member of the Advisory
Committee of the Army, Air Force and of the Atomic Energy
Commission-certainly a person to whom the supervision of an
autopsy of this relevance could have been entrusted. After
his death, all his papers and documents were preserved at
the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, of which he
was President from 1953.25
Dr
Bronk was a very methodical person, kept detailed diaries
and all his correspondence, notes and dates. But when Bob
Shell wanted to look through his papers and diaries for 1947,
he learnt that, mysteriously enough, this is the only year
for which all the records are missing. None of the friendly
librarians could tell him what had happened to them or why
they are still missing.26
Dr
Williams might have been Dr Robert Parvin Williams (1891-1967),
who was Special Assistant to the Surgeon General of the Army
at Fort Monroe, Virginia. He was a Lt. Col. in 1947 and was
promoted to Brig. General in 1949.27 Alone, the naming of
Dr Williams-who was the right man in the right place for the
task-indicates the cameraman had some inside knowledge.
Were
the protagonists of the alien autopsy footage indeed pathologists
or surgeons-or just actors? We asked the physicians who viewed
the footage: Prof. Dr Ch. Milroy, University of Sheffield,
UK: "Whilst the examination had features of a medically
conducted examination, aspects suggest it was not conducted
by an experienced pathologist, but rather by a surgeon."28
Prof.
Dr M. J. Mihatsch, University of Basle, Switzerland: "I
do not question the capability of the pathologist or surgeon
who is working on the corpse."29
Prof.
Cyril Wecht, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, USA: "(They)
are either pathologists or surgeons who have performed a number
of autopsies before."30
Prof.
Pierluigi Baima Bollone, University of Turin, Italy: "Definitely
surgeons, not pathologists...well-experienced."31
Prof.
Jean Pierre, University of Paris, France: "The persons
who performed the autopsy were certainly of the medical profession,
if not experienced pathologists."32
Dr
Carsten Nygren, Oslo, Norway: "These were surgeons doing
the work, not pathologists."33
In
fact, neither Prof. Bronk nor Dr Williams were pathologists:
Bronk was a biophysicist and Williams a surgeon. Indeed, not
one physician concluded they were actors or made any mistakes.
One
point of criticism was the type of autopsy performed. Obviously
it served the purpose of determining the cause of death rather
than of learning more about an alien life-form. On the other
hand, this is explainable by the circumstances under which
the autopsy was performed.
According
to the cameraman, four living aliens were found at the crash
site. One did not survive the recovery operation, the second
and third died about four weeks later, and the fourth survived
until May 1949.
We
do not know anything about the autopsy of the first creature,
and it might very well have been that it was subjected to
a 'big' scientific autopsy.
The
cameraman filmed the second and third autopsies on 1st and
3rd July 1947, when the main concern might have been to find
out the cause of their sudden deaths in order to find a way
to keep alien no. 4 alive-unless they could establish communication
and find out why these visitors had come to Earth. This was
surely of a higher interest for the national defence forces
than a scientific study of an alien life-form. Nevertheless,
we assume that organs were taken for further study during
the dissection.
Furthermore,
according to the cameraman, the fourth alien was autopsied
scientifically in a medical theatre in Washington, DC, in
the presence of leading scientists from the US, England and
France.34
The
debris footage
The Santilli footage showing metal samples was analysed by
Dennis W. Murphy, who has an Academy of Science degree in
marine diving technology and welding and has studied all types
of metalwork.
He
concluded: "I have never seen anything that resembles
the manufacturing techniques used in the construction of the
I-beams in the Santilli debris footage. I know of no manufacturing
process that could produce the multitude of details found
on the I-beams."
Murphy
refused possibilities like milling ("When I look at the
lettering I see precise rounds as part of the symbols. I do
not think that you can do this with current milling machines..."),
extrusion, rolling, casting, moulding ("against moulding...the
apparent lack of weight for all the pieces..., the acute right-angles
at the roots, the thinness of the flanges of the I-beam and
the finely detailed definition of the raised symbols...",
which could only be produced with metal of a high density
which is much heavier than the indicated weight), and the
use of foam-core paperboard ("the crystalline nature
of the break in the broken beams, the reflectivity of the
material in the break, the rigidity of the I-beams..."
argue against this possibility, according to Murphy).
The
nature of fractures, the flexible, light and highly reflective
appearance of the I-beams baffled Murphy and brought him to
the conclusion that, indeed, metal with an extremely fine,
crystalline structure had been used, manufactured with an
unknown technique.35 The same conclusion
was drawn by Prof. Dr Malanga of the University of Pisa, Italy.36
Master
Sergeant Bob Allen, USAF security coordinator at a top-secret
research facility near Tonapah, Nevada, recognised the panels
on the film: "The army came, after many years, to the
conclusion that the beings had taken the boxes out with them
because they were waiting to be picked up. Each panel was
constructed for each of the ETs individually. They could be
fitted into slots in various apparatus. The entire system-propulsion,
navigation, everything-could be started and controlled by
these panels. We tried it too, but our brain frequency was
not fast enough to operate them." According to Allen,
they were presented, together with other "alien hardware",
every 10 years to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories for
examination as the basis of latest state-of-the-art science.37
This
was confirmed by a USAF engineer, working for Sandia Laboratories
in Albuquerque, who identified them as some kind of "biofeedback
computers responding to neural impulses".38
"We learned how to feed information into them, but we
were not able to get information out of them," he added.
Bill
Uhouse, a mechanical design engineer who worked at the top-secret
facility at Area 51 on the Nevada test site-where he allegedly
worked with alien technology-identified them as "personal
control panels. They served to communicate with the individual
member of the crew and possibly to interact with a computer
on board or, better, the steering unit. When the craft crashed,
each crew member took his panel with him. Possibly they served
as communication with a mother ship, which could locate and
rescue them."39
(Continued
- Alien Autopsy Film Part 2...)
Authors
Details: Michael
Hesemann
Editor/Publisher Magazin 2000
Worringer Strasse 1, D-40211 Düsseldorf, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)211 354893 |
(See
also Alien Autopsy Pictures...) |
