Conference back40::soapbox

    Another note mentioned Cyril Wecht.  Izzis the same dude that played
    some sort of prominent role in the JFK autopsy?  The name rings a
    bell...
    
    |-{:-)
    

    
    I saw part of it.  Pretty good hoax, but (I'm convinced) a hoax
    nonetheless.
    

    Scully?

    Beverly?
    

    Mulder?

    
    ...and then they walked around to the other side of the flying saucer,
    and when they came to the hatchway...
    
    
    
    ...there was a BLOODY HOOK dangling from the handle...
    

    No wonder you have an exclamation point for a nose with all that
    shouting.

    I didn't see it, but I can remark on techniques that might have been
    used.
    
    Anachronisms?  Any of the Hollyweird majors, and most of the minors,
    has a warehouse of antique furniture, instruments, and so on.  '47 was
    recent enough, and well documented enough in magazines, that you could
    get real people who were alive then to verify the authenticity of your
    set and props.
    
    Techniques, same-old, same-old.  Autopsy surgery hasn't changed all
    that much - it's still meatball cutting.  Real live doctors for your
    consultants.
    
    The making of a fake corpse is not difficult.  You see really excellent
    ones in all the teevee medical dramas, even to oozing blood and slimy
    guts when they're cut into - and that's for a weekly series, where
    they're on a tight budget.  And of course this one was purported to be
    an alien, so if it weren't perfect that would just be chalked up to
    differences in physiology.
    
    As to film quality, both audio and video, there are tools available for
    ordinary home computers that can alter images and sound tracks to make
    them appear old.  For audio, train your actors to speak with the kinds
    of accents that one hears in the Movietone newsreels.  Record in a real
    room instead of on a soundstage, and you have the ambient quality. 
    Filter lows and highs a little to simulate older recording equipment -
    or even dig out older mikes and an old Ampex reel-to-reel tape.  For
    video, it's a cinch - you could film in B&W or you could process a
    color image on a computer.  Again, film in a real room with amateurish
    lighting.  Add just the right delicate touch of blur to suggest old
    film, diddle with the contrast to suggest orthochromatic film instead
    of panchromatic, and you're there.  I've even got a filter that injects
    user-specified amounts of TV noise and signal-reflection ghosting into
    stills, and if you applied that to each frame of a movie you'd get the
    effect of a real TV/movie.
    
    It's sufficient for me to know that it could have been faked.  Easily. 
    Lead the willing to believe what they want to believe, and you can
    "prove" a massive government conspiracy to cover up a sensational event
    that never happened.

    I saw about 5 minutesof the show. One special effects type said that if
    it was a hoax, then whoever did it could get a job in hollywood
    immediately because they did such an excellent job. I have a hard time
    taking the video at face value; the probability of it being a hoax
    seems pretty high to me.

It took something like 50 years for the famous picture of the Loch Ness
Monster to be admitted by one of the people who took it to have been a
hoax; keeping a hoax secret is very easy if you get _few_ enough trusted
people together.

    
    So, what about the film stock?  Kodak says the stock was manufactured
    in Rochester in either 1947 or 1967.  Do you think the hoaxsters got 
    ahold of some unexposed stock recently, or is this film 18/38 years old?
   

    .12
    
    >  is this film 18/38 years old?
    
    Corroborative evidence:  I have several unexposed rolls of 122 film,
    last manufactured in 1973, and a camera, made in 1923, to use it in.  I
    could still make excellent pictures with this film, although image
    contrast would be degraded in a way that is called fogging.  Kodak
    makes a chemical called Anti-Fog, specifically for use with older
    films, to reduce or eliminate the effects of fogging due to age.  Add
    Anti-Fog and a computer for contrast enhancement of the transferred
    image, and there you are.
    
    Ans:  Yes, it is certainly possible that someone got hold of some old
    film stock and, having done so, hatched a scheme to make sensational,
    and hence, lucrative, use of it.

    Didn't see it, but heard one comment on this AM's radio from a caller. 
    She made the point that whatever it was that was stark naked, being cut
    open, the producers of the show chose to "blur" the genital area.  If
    we're allowed to see the insides of an alien's body, why was it so
    important to shield us from viewing its genitals?  Do aliens have a
    particularly intriguing form of penis?
    
    -- Jim

    re: -1
    
    Or it could be from 1927.
    
    If it's a big conspiracy, it wouldn't be too hard to get people to lie. 
    Trust no one.  Accept nothing at face value.
    
    Though I don't believe we are completely alone in this big universe,
    I could not make myself believe that this footage was kosher.  Put my
    vote into the "it was a fake" category. 
    
    
    -steve

    Internal stuff isn't exciting to anybody except maybe the late Jeffrey
    Dahmer.  Seeing a female's genitals, even be she an alien, might give
    woodies to all those reichwyng conspiracists that you'd expect to be
    glued to the teevee.
    
    But a better reason is that blurring out the genital area makes it
    possible to avoid detailing it, and also to add a calculated touch of
    "authenticity" because blurring is often used to hide real people and
    would therefore be interpreted as hiding yet another "real" thing.

    
    A monkey wrench in the "authenticity" category would have been to blur
    out, say, where the kneecaps on a human would be, rather than where
    normal, human genitals are...
    
     This would have really had the "reichwyng conspiracists" in a titter
    as to what was really on the table!!
    

    re: .16
    
     I believe it was the TV station that was broadcasting the tape that
    blurred the genital area, not the tape itself. Not that this would be
    an anachronism, if the blurring occurred on the tape itself.

        Right, Mark - I copied over some stills from the autopsy film and
        the genital area is not blurred in the original - not that
        there's anything much to see; just a dark vertical line.
        

    
    
    	A theory they had was that this could actually be a HUMAN that
    	was exposed to massive amounts of radiation and major deformities
    	were caused.  Supposedly, where the 'spaceship' was found was very
    	near to a nuclear testing area.
    
    

    It is quite plausible they blurred the alleged genital area as we all
    know that 1947 was a morally pure time (in contrast to the present) and
    anythign between the legs would have been suspect as being sexually
    expressive and therefore worthy of censorship lest all the viewers
    exclaim in horror "They showed it's thingies!" 
    
    Then again, maybe not.    

    re: .19
    
    I missed the show... your note seems to imply that there are
    some stills from the autopsy film available on line, perhaps
    on the WWW?  Might you have a pointer to that?
    
    I'm still wading through next-unseens, sorry if you've already
    posted this somewhere else...
    
    Thanks,
    Chris

    re; a few back, yes Wecht is the same guy who supports the consiracy
        theory in the Kennedy assasination.
    
       

    The blurring of the genital area definitely looked like an 
    "after-market" job by the network and not by the original cameraman.
    Stan Winston who is a special effects god in Hollywood said it was
    a brilliant piece of work if it was a hoax and he'd hire the person
    immediately. I found it entertaining if nothing else.  Even people
    from the Roswell Incident camp discredited the film so not everybody
    is jumping on the bandwagon.  To me personally, it just didn't have the
    look or feel of something that was filmed almost 50 yrs. ago.
    
    
    

    As long as OJ didn't have anything to do with it.

ET (Entertainment Tonight) showed excerpts without genital area 'scrambled'.

    Scrambled genitals. Ouch!

    So.... was this alien a "goer?"
                             

    
    I'll bet she was, I'll bet she was...
    

    
    Star Trek was on at the same time, it was a more convincing story.
    

    .28
    
    Having seen those four stills, I'm convinced that this is a fake. 
    Convergent evolution in the single ecosystem on this planet has yielded
    four different ways to fly, but the creatures that can fly all look
    radically different.
    
    The idea that convergent evolution separated by some significant number
    of parsecs should produce a creature so profoundly and precisely
    humanoid is laughable.
    
    And the idea that God would create interstellar aliens so like us is
    also laughable in the face of Christian theology, which asserts that we
    are unique.

    And anent .27, you never seem to complain when you're chowing down on
    Rocky Mountain Oysters & scrambled eggies...
    
    Can you explain this discrepancy for the Listening Audience, plezz??
    

    
    .32:
    
    Agreed.  Ultimately, no matter how convincing such evidence may or may
    not be, I *have* to believe that such things are hoaxes, based simply 
    on their extreme unlikelihood.
    
    And, having seen `Terminator 2' and `Jurassic Park' and `The Mask'
    and `Forrest Gump', I've lost faith in film/video evidence.  :^)
    
    jc
                     

    .32
    
    Four ways? Enlighten us.

re:.27

And I went thru all the trouble of re-editing/posting .26 so that games wouldn't
be played with "ET".

Ya just caint win.

 .35 <cringe>

    .35
    
    Four ways.
    
    Insects - wings emerge from body, are not adapted limbs.
    
    Pterosaurs - wings are adapted upper limbs, aerodynamic surface is a
    membrane stretched from body to fourth finger and stiffened by
    cartilagnous needles; remaining fingers are still present as claws.
    
    Birds - wings are adapted upper limbs, aerodynamic surface is modified
    scales (feathers).  Fingers are atrophied and unusable.
    
    Bats - wings are adapted upper limbs, aerodynamic surface is a membrane
    stretched between all fingers and body.

    Probably had been around a bit, you know, been around.

    
    .39,
    
    Is any differentiation made between the way an eagle uses wings and the
    way a hummingbird uses wings?
    

    How about the theory that these are not extraterrestrials, or people
    from other planets, but survivors of the Preadamic race?

    .41
    
    No, except that the two species are of different sizes; the eagle is
    too big to hover and the hummingbird is too small to soar.

    
    >How about the theory that these are not extraterrestrials, or people
    >from other planets, but survivors of the Preadamic race?
    
    The "preadamic race"?  Is that like "Death Race 2000"?
    

    never mind that bogus "couldn't be - defies the laws of evolution"
    garbage...
    
    i wanna know how come this disk probably hurtling into the earth at
    incomprehensible speeds (with it pretty much breaking into little
    pieces) didn't cause severe trauma on these little weeble people?
    
    and don't tell me they were wearing their seat belts and shoulder
    restraints! :-)
    
    

    Didn't see Star Trek: Generations didja' Chip?  Didn't think so.  

    gee Brian no, would that have cleared up my opinion on evolution
    or the value of buckling up? :-) 

    Well, after looking at the photos it's clear to me that off world donut
    shops exist.

    
    "Tim Horton's:  Our donuts are out of this world"
                
    

    Pass me a Boston Cream before I cream into Boston.

    The still photos are very interesting.  Assuming it's not a hoax
    (which is more difficult to determine from looking at stills than
    it might be on viewing the entire footage, but nonetheless...),
    then I'm impressed by the degree to which the creature resembles
    a human, or more to the point, resembles what I'd imagine humans
    will evolve into in perhaps a few hundred thousand years.
    
    The theorists who've believed all along that "UFO's" are actually
    humans from our own future may be the winners this morning.  Assuming
    that this isn't all crapola for a moment, somehow I find the notion
    of being visited by "humans" from our distant future to be considerably
    more disturbing than the notion of being visited by aliens from
    another star system.
    
    If they're "future humans" from Earth, then I guess it's promising
    in that "we made it", but it's still too weird for me.  It would
    explain a few things, though, most notably their avoidance of general
    contact.  Imagine us, being able to peek in on our ancestors of a
    few hundred thousand years ago... we wouldn't exactly invite them
    over for beer and pizza.
    
    And if "time travel" is ever developed in the distant future, it makes
    sense that we'd not only have some evidence of their current visits,
    but also evidence of their visits from "long ago", since it's all
    the same to them.  This week, visit 1995; next week, visit 2500 B.C.
    
    Chris

    So why are they harvesting human organs and poking our eyes and guts
    with long needles then?

    
    Sounds like the X Files to me.
    
    Mary
    

    
    .52

    Grins and giggles...?
    
    They make great hor'derves (sp)?
    
    It's a slow day in the new room in 3535 ?
    
    Neat new party trick ?

    
        Stop this now, before you give Oliver Stone ideas !
    
        8^)  8^)
    
       ( just kidding..... I did like O. Stone's "JFK" )
    
    

    
    .55
    
    I believe so, yes.  I know he's a deceased hockey player.
    
    Nice travel mugs they got there, btw.  I have the "SuperTim".
    
    8^)
    
    

    
    .32
    
    Dick,
    
    You have it the wrong way round.  It's we who look like them because
    they seeded our planet with DNA millennia ago.  They put alien DNA into
    comets (cryogenic storage) and lobbed them randomly into deep space.
    
    Then they mixed a few gargle blasters, sat back and waited for
    wormhole-inducers to be invented.  As soon as they could cross the
    barren depths of intergalactic space, they popped across to see
    how we were doing.
    
    Plus you missed one other way to fly:  Martinis.
    
    
    Best,
             
    Colin
    

    .39
    
    Ahh...I lumped bats and Pterosaurs in da same category...
    
    It's dem fingers. Seem awfully close, anyways.

    
    how come they had 6 fingers? 
    too much time on keyboards.
    

    
    re: .55
    
    
    Hear's to him!!
    

    .60
    
    That's a very important clue to deciphering other data.  Their
    numbering system must have been base 12 rather than base 10.

    Handy if you're having your daily dozen.

                >The reason why the film was 'blurred' on the gentalia area is obvious:
    >the 'alien' was circumsized.

    ah, so the alien was in a "state of bris". :-)

    -b (another reich winger conspiracy type who gave it all a miss)

    Well you see Chip I could splain it to ya' but then I'd hafta spoil the
    movie for the other two or three folks that haven't seen it yet.  Once
    you have seen it though, you will be convinced beyond the shadow of
    doubt that you need not be wearing seatbelts during pangalactic travel
    and crash landings to survive without becoming something that vaguely
    resembles a strawberry milkshake upon impact.  Sound highly unlikely I
    know but seeing is believing.  

    The saucer wasn't equipped with air bags?

    With all dem fingers, they  must be hellacious banjo players...
    
    I have seen four stills of the alleged alien on the internet, in
    JPG files, and there was nothing in the genital area to hide, no
    obvious organs of either sex. A toad has more to show...
    
    THe finger and toes job was pertty good, if it was a hoax. My TV is
    getting old and fuzzy, were there any nipples or navel evident ? I
    couldn't discern anything.
    
    From other reports I've encountered on the internet, there were
    supposed to be some photos of recovered hardware, debris, control
    panels, etc; it was disappointing to see that Fox decided to not
    bother showing them. Unless they're saving them for Alien Autopsy II...
    
    

    Nor seat belts or ABS and also equipped with the pinto fuel cell
    apparently.  

    extraterrestrial snarph....

    <--- From the photos, I don't think it would be worth the bother.

>    THe finger and toes job was pertty good, if it was a hoax. My TV is
>    getting old and fuzzy, were there any nipples or navel evident ?

Intergalactic DUI... they drank too many fuzzy navels.

    
    The electrohydrodynamic drive makes for smoooooth interstellar travel.
    

    
    where on the net can one find the photos?
    

    http://www.bloat.donut/fatso/aliens.html

    agreed

    
    
       What was the "official" explanation as to what crashed at
       Roswell in 1947? I believe the air force said that they were
       testing some kind of radar network aboard high altitude
       balloons and there was an "accident".
    
    
       Ed
    

    
    It was SPAM.
    
    nnttm, hth, ymmv, rotfl, imnsho...
    

    
    By the way, the (allegedly) real explanation was a high-tech balloon
    designed to spy on Soviet nuclear testing.
    

    I didn't watch the show but caught a promo; I thought the announcer
    said they couldn't tell whether it was a dude or dudette.  Either
    way, I think I've seen IT in more than one sci-fi movie :-)
    

Of course they couldn't determine the gender - they used those huge
pixels to mask it out.

                             
    I can hear it now... "yes ladies and gentlemen, based on the
    photographic evidence, we are unable to determine if the alien is a 
    dude or a dudette..."

    "..... but what we have determined is that the alien has a cruller
    fetish..."

    After further examination of the photos, I've determined that
    the alien was actually the 1947 prototype of Poppin' Fresh,
    the Pillsbury Doughboy.
    
    When they popped him open in this marketing demo film (that had
    been intended for viewing by distributors and executives of large
    food chains), they were delighted to find various Pillsbury food
    products on display.
    
    Chris

    female

    
    
    RE: .85
    
    You've watched 'Ghostbusters' one too many times....
    
    
    
    
    
    :*)
    Terrie
    

    Maybe the Pillsbury Doughboy after a trip to Jenny Craig?
    

    .87
    
    "Ghostbusters" featured the Stay-Puf Marshmallow Man, not Dough-Boy.

    i thought it was the Michelin man...

    
    No, that's me - when I'm wearing my wetsuit.

    There is another set of 'alien being' photos circulating 'round the
    network, this one looks entirely different, very slender torso, 
    thin legs and arms, four digits instead of six and a larger head.
    Looks more like the critter on the front cover of the Whitley Streiber
    books. These are extracted from some Hong Kong tabloid newspaper.
    Your warp speed and mileage may vary...
    
    

    Must be the "Fit For Life" Aliens.

    Yeah, I just found that "alternative alien" pic yesterday after
    a brief foray into the UFOS conference.  This one's supposedly
    from the "first autopsy" that was done in a tent or some such
    place shortly after the crash.  Supposedly this alien (which
    looks much scarier, and very much like the descriptions given
    by the various "abductees") was hit on the head with a rifle
    butt in the "skirmish" following the Roswell crash, and the
    appropriately-shaped head bruise is visible in the photo.
    
    To me, it looks like a fake, because I can see what appears
    to be a clean-break curved line where the head looks to be
    attached to an emaciated and altered human.  Also note that
    you only get to see an oblique view of the face.
    
    And furthermore, the other alien looks more cuddly and friendly.
    
    Supposedly, the film of this first autopsy also exists, but was
    obtained by a Chinese or Japanese (I forget which) person who
    does not wish the film to be used commercially.  Whatever that
    means.
    
    Chris

    
    I was curious, so I checked the follow-up broadcast of the
    "alien autopsy" thing.

    While I personally think it's a load of crap, no conclusion
    can be reached either way. I have no reason to trust a
    single person who was interviewed; I have no reason to trust
    the producers of the program to tell me 1) the whole story
    and 2) the truth; I have no reason to trust anyone because
    they're from the cast of an insipid TV sci-fi program; and
    I have no reason to trust the government.

    Given this, I have no reason to burn another nanosecond of
    time trying to make any sense of it. I'm giving the entire
    subject the royal flush; it doesn't matter if the alien
    turns out to be Buddy Hackett.

    -b

    >> it doesn't matter if the alien
    >> turns out to be Buddy Hackett.
    
    Fwah!  Buddy Hackett used to scare me when I was a kid seeing
    him on TV; I used to think he was some kind of monster.  Hmmm...
    
    You would've liked the photos of the saucer instrument panel,
    complete with molded-in alien six-fingered hand shapes (like
    a kid would make pushing his hands into Play-Doh), with little
    buttons in the fingertip depressions.
    
    Looked like it was designed by Bill Gates, simple and intuitive.
    "Put your hands right in here..."
    
    Chris

    I caught the re-run on Monday night as well.  Maybe that hefty one was
    pregnant ;-)

    the hefty one was with donut.

    do you think ET would be of the snarfer type?

    I took another look at the 'skinny' ET, and it occured to me that
    he/she/it was extremely similar to, if not identical, to the aliens
    depicted in the movie "Roswell" shown July last year on TMC. My SWAG
    is that this being is most likely to be more closely related to VInce
    and Larry (the crash test dummies) than to ET. THe donut alien still
    looks too fake, and the fact that the internal organs appeared to have
    no connections and visible means of support and attachment, lend
    credence to the hoax hypothesis. 
    
    THe hand-print control panels look too much like a rejected prop from 
    a '50s B-grade space monster from planet X type flick.
    
    

    You'd look pretty fake too if you et that many donuts.

    Yeah, but his entrails would be connected and identifiable.  Well, we
    hope so, anyway.

    Jelly filled entrails no doubt.

    S/he must be Jelly Roll Mort.

    I prefer `Donut Alien'.

    Donatellian?  S/he did look a little drawn.
    
    Quartered even.

    There are dozens more where s/he came from.

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" 14-SEP-1995 17:14:10.01
To:	FocusUFO-L recipients <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	Detailed Roadmap to Autopsy Film

> Source: alt.paranet.ufo
> From: "John W. Ratcliff" <[email protected]>
> Date: 10 Sep 1995 20:01:34 GMT

ROADMAP OF "ALIEN AUTOPSY" FILM
by Bob Shell

ENTIRE DOCUMENT COPYRIGHT (C) 1995, BOB SHELL LTD.  
MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED ONLY WITH PERMISSION.

[ Uploaded to USENET with permission of Bob Shell, John Ratcliff
[email protected] ]

The purpose of this preliminary study of the film is to provide some
useful information which I hope will be helpful to others in making their
own evaluations.  Consider it a "roadmap" with travel notes as you look
at the film. I have remarked on points of particular interest to me and
have indicated their location on the tape of the second autopsy.  My time
index begins with the first actual film frame on the video, and others
should be able to use my index numbers to locate the points I am calling
attention to.  When referring to directions, all references to left and
right are the creature's left and right; except when otherwise noted.  I
have tried to avoid technical terms as much as possible, but a few were
inevitable, and I hope are not confusing.  I have used terms which would
apply to a human or mammal body, but it must be remembered that this is
not a human or mammal body, so these terms will be approximations rather
than accurate descriptions.  For the purpose of this report, I have
assumed that this is a real non-human body, but I ask that you look at
the film and my comments and make your own decisions, as this point is by
no means fully established.

I have referred to the man who appears to be in charge as the "surgeon"
and his assistant as the "doctor", although it is unclear if the
assistant is the same person throughout, since there is a third person in
the room at times who also seems to be assisting.

When I use the term "Break in film" this does not refer to a physical
break but to a noticeable change of camera position in an otherwise
continuous roll of film.  It is my speculation that some of these breaks
were made by the cameraman so that he could change his position for a
better view.  Others, made for no apparent reason, may have been pauses
to allow still photography to be done. I would appreciate any feedback,
comments, corrections, criticisms of this report, which I stress is a
preliminary document.

00:00 -- First images.  Camera pointed at floor, moves up to creature's
head, on creature's left side.  In this brief opening sequence the steel
frame support for the autopsy table is clearly visible, as well as the
drain pan on the floor underneath.  The pan appears to be empty at this
time.  As camera moves up from floor a wall-mounted electrical outlet can
be seen on the right.  It is a horizontal type mounted on the wall, not
recessed into it.

00:02 -- Creature's head just comes into frame.  Camera moves to show
head and torso of creature.  In the background, against the far wall is a
small table covered with a white cloth.  On this table is a Bunsen burner
(not lighted) with a flask stand next to it, two metal bowls, a test tube
rack with what appears to be five test tubes in it, two of them with
stoppers, a large beaker half filled with a dark fluid, a large flask,
and some other glassware.

00:06 -- Camera pans down body.  Dark area, perhaps a bruise is seen on
the side where lower edge of rib cage would be on a human.  Another
"bruise" can be seen just above the iliac area.  The cameraman walks
around the body in a clockwise direction, showing the left thigh which
appears to be badly bruised and swollen. In this and subsequent scenes,
the creature's distended belly is quite striking, and there is no
evidence that I can see of a navel.

00:09 -- As cameraman comes around the body, it can be clearly seen that
the right hand is almost completely severed at the wrist, and appears to
be held on only by a strip of skin.  The wound in the right thigh is also
clearly seen in this sequence.

00:11 -- Wound under right armpit is clearly seen.

00:12 -- A "bruise" is visible on the right side in exactly the same
place as on the left side.  May not be bruises, but some natural
pigmentation or organ of the creature.

00:13 -- Cameraman begins to circle back around in the opposite
direction, at which time you can see that the thigh wound is a
penetrating wound with a smaller "entry wound" on the outer side of the
thigh.

00:17-- Drain holes in table clearly visible as cameraman shows close
views of legs and feet.

00:23 -- Chest or cooler visible under the table holding the tray of
surgical instruments.

00:25 -- Electrical outlet behind table seen, same as one mentioned
earlier. Clock is plugged into this one.

00:29 -- As camera is pointed more upwards, clock and microphone are seen
for the first time. Clock shows 10:06.

00:35 -- Starting with closeup of head from right side the cameraman
circles around the body again.

01:01 -- Surgeon appears for first time.  Comes in from the right. Begins
examining creature's head and neck.

01:16 -- Break in film -- Surgeon now on opposite side of creature,
feeling neck with left hand while holding head with right hand.  Man
behind window appears to be watching intently.

01:25 -- Surgeon looks into mouth for six seconds, points to mouth and
speaks into microphone emphatically.  Looks again, points again, and
appears to be talking to someone on opposite side of table.  It is
important to note that this man I am calling the surgeon, who appears to
be in charge, has some very characteristic hand gestures, including an
emphatic, stabbing motion when pointing things out.  This may help
establish his identity.

01:43 -- Break in film -- Surgeon lifts and flexes injured leg which
seems to be slightly stiff.  Looks hard at wound.

01:53 -- Roll of film ends in whiteout.  This is characteristic of the
Bell & Howell Filmo 70 cameras which often come to a stop with the
shutter open.

01:55 -- Next roll starts.  Now two people visible in room.  Camera on
left side of table looking across creature. One, apparently the original
surgeon (based on his gestures) studies leg wound intently, then
indicates by gesture and comments directed to the microphone where the
dissection cuts will be made.  Clock on wall reads 10:20

02:25 -- Surgeon feels over abdomen, perhaps trying to determine cause of
distention, while making comments into microphone.

02:41 -- Surgeon points to something on right side of creature's head out
of camera range and speaks about it.  Clock reads 10:23

02:44 -- Break in film.  View from foot of table.  Surgeon pulls pubic
slit open, looks intently inside, speaks toward man behind glass who
responds to the comments.  Man behind glass glances down periodically
during this sequence as though making notes.  Pubic slit examination can
not be seen clearly because the surgeon's hands and arm are in the way,
but careful examination of single frames seems to indicate that the area
inside the upper part of the slit is featureless and smooth.  This
requires additional study.

03:20 -- Surgeon returns to leg wound and moves his hand around top of it
while making comments toward the microphone.  Appears to be describing
wound.  Second doctor reappears at foot of table.

03:30 -- Surgeon again feels abdomen while talking to second doctor.
Appears to be describing the planned dissection procedure.

03:36 -- Second doctor points to pubic slit with odd hand motion.  Holds
hand palm up, folds all fingers except pinkie, and points with that. (Who
points like this??  Gesture looks very odd to me.)

03:37 -- Break in film --

03:38 -- Closeup from bottom of table looking at wound.  Surgeon has
scissors and forceps.  (Someone has said that he holds the scissors
wrong, but I have no idea what they are talking about.  He holds them the
same way I always did when making dissections, just the ordinary way you
pick up scissors when cutting paper or cloth.  I can't see how else you
could hold them.)  Surgeon lifts what appears to be burned skin tissue at
top of wound with forceps and begins to snip off a sample with scissors.

03:59 -- Break in film -- Slightly closer view from left side of table as
tissue is cut.

04:01 -- Break in film --  Still closer view from across table.  Tissue
sample is lifted and deposited in glass container resembling a very deep
Petri dish which appears to have some liquid in it.

04:05 -- Break in film -- View from over surgeon's left shoulder as he
inspects the burned tissue around the top of the "entry wound" on the
outer side of the right thigh, moving the tissue with his forceps. Looks
as though he is about to cut a sample with the scissors but changes his
mind.  Interior of wound shows odd looking, spongy, shiny tissue under
muscles.  This is not seen very clearly, but can possibly be enhanced for
detail.

04:11 --  Roll of film ends in whiteout.

04;17 --  Next roll begins.  View from left of table looking toward head
of table.  Semi closeup as surgeon lifts left hand of creature and
describes.  Then moves down body to left foot and points out six toes
while speaking.   (An odd point:  There is no view from the head of the
table of the surgeon holding the hand.  Yet one of the stills from
Merlin's web page clearly shows this.  Why is it not here?  Perhaps this
is accounted for by the fact that this video is one minute and fifteen
seconds shorter than the stated 18 minute length.)

04:26 -- Break in film --  View from left of table looking toward feet.
Surgeon points to features of foot while speaking and gesturing to second
doctor.  Foot clearly has six toes, and human-like toenails.

04:34 -- Break in film -- Closeup side view of creatures head and neck
from left, low angle.  Surgeon begins first cut behind left ear, down
neck and across upper chest.  Then cuts down center of abdomen.  This is
a superficial cut only, just through the skin, and establishes the
position of the cuts.  When the skin is cut it bleeds.  At 04:38 the
"nipple" is clearly seen.  However this feature appears only on the left
side of the chest, and there is no matching feature on the right.  In a
bilaterally symmetrical creature like this, a nipple on only one side is
highly unlikely.  I consider this some sort of skin injury, but it will
require more study and enhancement to make a positive determination.
During this sequence at about 04:50, a "wound" in the form of a small
round depression about the size of the end of the surgeon's thumb is
clearly visible on the creature's left temple area.  This does not appear
to be a natural feature, since there is no matching one on the right side
of the head.  It has been speculated that this is the rifle butt wound,
but it is too small and the wrong shape.  Could possibly be a wound
caused by striking with the barrel of a rifle.  At about 04:54 the
doctors features can be seen through the face mask briefly.

05:09 -- Break in film -- Second cut down midline of chest and belly
shown in closeup.  This is a deeper cut, made with a sawing motion of the
scalpel, to penetrate the subcutaneous muscle layer and tissue. Sequence
ends with camera panning up to surgeon's face.  His eyes and part of his
face are briefly visible during this.

05:25 -- Break in film with whiteout.  Final abdominal cut made. Surgeon
hands scalpel to other doctor, who appears to be female.  Film is denser
during this sequence reflecting uneven development characteristic of hand
processing. Abdomen does not deflate when final cut is made.  Clock shows
10:40.  During this sequence some things can be seen better due to the
denser film.  First of all, the top of the head part of the suits can be
seen to puff in and out with the breathing of the doctors.  The sign on
the wall can be seen to read DANGER. Under this are two lines of large
type, which I can not make out, and a shorter line of smaller type under
these.  It should be possible to read this sign with some computer
enhancement.

05:32 -- Surgeon begins reflection of skin and muscle layer from upper
chest by lifting and pulling while cutting it free underneath with a
scalpel.  Revealed underside of this layer as well as internal chest
structure is smooth and glistening, wet.  View is from upper left.

05:46 --  Break in film -- Skin and muscle layer on chest and belly fully
opened.  "Ribcage" fully visible but shows no definition of individual
ribs. Looks like a fused structure.  View is from lower left. Cameraman
moves to right during sequence.  Surgeon is busy pointing to things,
manipulating some, and speaking toward microphone.

06:12 -- Break in film -- View from lower left.  Organs clearly visible,
with large oblong dark organ protruding from under ribcage, apparently
swollen, may be cause of swollen belly.  Camera moves in close and then
moves toward head. Sternocleidomastoid muscles very prominent, tubular
not flattened as in human, very long.  Appear to arch over clavicle ends
and attach directly to "sternum". Clavicles show deep V shape, attaching
to "sternum" much lower than in human and appearing to actually have
their points of attachment inside the ribcage.  Top of ribcage seems to
have solid, transverse structure, and ribs seem to begin lower than in
human.  Could not see any "adam's apple" or indication of voice box, but
difficult to see between the sternocleidomastoid muscles.  This whole
neck and upper chest muscle and skeletal structure is very odd in
appearance and very non-human.

06:32 -- Break in film -- Closeup of neck from upper left, pan down over
body and organs.

06:38 -- Break in film -- Closeup of chest, pan up to head.

06:47 -- Break in film -- Looking down from upper left on neck.  Muscles
clearly visible.  Pan down body.

06:53 -- Break in film -- Looking up from lower left.  Doctors reappear,
one working on  tray of instruments.

07:05 -- End of roll.  Whiteout.

07:10 -- Next roll begins in whiteout.

07:13 -- View of table from lower left, low angle.  Surgeon asks other
doctor for scissors, again using his forceful shaking finger as he
points.  Removes small organ which is not seen clearly and drops into
glass dish held by other doctor.

Camera moves to higher angle and begins pan to photographer's left.  You
then see that the front of the "ribcage" has been cut away and removed.
Surgeon points to "heart" and speaks while pointing.

07:46 -- Break in film -- View from upper left as surgeon begins to cut
connective tissue above "heart".

07:52 -- Break in film -- Camera now on right side showing closeup of
chest area as surgeon works on "heart".

08:03 -- Break in film -- Surgeon works with fingers and scalpel to
remove "crystal" from heart.  At the early part of this sequence, the cut
ends of the ribs on the left side of the body can be seen, but not
clearly.  The "crystal" object is triangular in shape, transparent and
hollow (surgeon pokes his finger inside to demonstrate this).  Looks to
be about two inches across.  Very strange object, whatever it is.
Throughout this sequence you can see clearly inside of the body cavity.

08:16 -- Break in film -- Camera back on left side.  Moves to foot of
table. Man behind window can be seen intently observing the doctors at
work, and then glancing down.  Motion of his arms suggest that he is
either typing or using a steno machine.

08:37 -- Break in film -- View from right side, closeup of chest cavity.
There is no sign of any lungs, trachea, bronchial tubes or associated
structures.  I could not see any sign of a diaphragm.  There is also no
sign of an esophagus. The large organ which was sticking out from under
the ribcage earlier has also been removed.  This all could have been
removed during the missing roll in the earlier gap, when the ribcage was
also cut and removed.  Surgeon lifts a pale colored tube which looks like
aorta above heart and cuts it with scissors. There appears to be no blood
inside, so this could possibly be an esophagus instead of an artery. 
Camera pans down as surgeon cuts connective tissue under a large firm
organ with scissors.  This organ might possibly be the liver, but its
placement is lower than expected and it is not shaped exactly as
expected.

08:54 --  Break in film -- Surgeon lifts this organ from body cavity and
places into steel pan held by other doctor.

09:05 -- End of roll.  Whiteout.

09:08 -- Closeup from right side of lower abdomen.  Surgeon lifts spongy
mass from belly area and puts in bowl held by other doctor.  Other doctor
turns and places it on table and then makes note on pad of paper (on
clipboard?  Not clear.)

Other writing is clearly visible on this paper and could probably be read
with enhancement.

Camera pans back to surgeon who is feeling around inside abdomen.  He
grasps another organ and cuts under it.  Camera pans away and down leg.
It is important to note that these large, spongy organs fill up the lower
abdomen, and that there is no sign that I can detect of small or large
intestines, which would fill up the lower abdominal cavity in a human.  I
can not relate these abdominal organs to anything familiar in human
anatomy.

09:33 -- Break in film -- View from upper left over surgeon's shoulder as
this organ is lifted out and put in bowl held by doctor.

09:48 -- Break in film -- View from foot of table left.  Man behind
window seems to be typing.  Surgeon on the left of table, doctor on the
right.  Two small organs (Kidneys?) removed from upper abdomen, put in
pan, and taken to table by doctor.

10:05 -- Break in film -- Closeup of head from lower left.  Surgeon looks
hard at eyes, says something to man behind glass, asks nurse for forceps.
 Takes forceps and looks hard at left eye from several angles.

10:22 -- Break in film -- Closer view from same angle.  Surgeon deftly
lifts black cover from left eye and drops it into a glass dish half
filled with clear liquid.  Dish is held out for him by doctor.

10:27 -- Break in film -- View from other side of table as procedure is
repeated on right eye.

NOTE:  These segments are NOT out of sequence as some have claimed.  The
neck skin has simply been rolled back down into place.

10:38 -- Break in film -- Closeup of head from left.  Slow pan across
face shows rolled up eyes and part of iris.  Camera pans around head to
show surgeon starting transverse cut across scalp, from ear to ear across
top of head.

10:47 -- Break in film -- Closeup of cut being made from over surgeon's
right shoulder.

10:55 -- Break in film -- Same view as cut is made deeper.  Some bleeding
from cut.

10:57 -- End of roll.  Whiteout.

11:03 -- View from foot of table as surgeon cuts scalp.  Doctor on right
side of table holds head at chin.  Camera pans to cameraman's right. Man
behind window moves around to get a better view.

Cameraman walks to left of table and then back showing someone making
notes on the table, and for the first time showing that there are three
"doctors" participating in this dissection.  Surgeon still working on
scalp.

11:35 -- Break in film -- Closeup from left as surgeon peels scalp
forward.

11:41 -- Break in film -- View over surgeon's right shoulder as scalp is
peeled forward while scalpel is used to free it from the rough textured
skull.

11:56 -- Break in film -- View from foot of table.  Cameraman moves
around left side of table for closeup while surgeon works and doctor
steadies head. Cameraman seems to be jockeying for a good view while
staying out of surgeon's way.

12:07 --  During a pan to the cameraman's left, a chest or cooler is seen
 under the table holding the instruments and against the wall. It is
fitted with metal carrying handles.

12:09 -- View from left closeup, surgeon still peeling scalp.

12:12 -- Break in film -- View from foot of table, right.  Doctor still
holding head as surgeon works on scalp.  Man behind glass has eyes down.
Blood clearly visible between creature's legs draining into holes in
table.

12:24 -- Break in film -- View over surgeon's right shoulder.  Still
peeling scalp.  Cameraman walks to his left behind surgeon's back to show
view from surgeon's left side.  Still appears to be looking for a good
angle to film from.

12:40 -- Cameraman apparently bumps surgeon, who turns and appears to be
angry, waving his hand in the cameraman's face and pushing him back.
Cameraman moves back to his left, camera tilts up and off subject.  This
looks to me like a flare-up of temper from the surgeon, either from the
discomfort of the suit or the tension of the procedure.

12:46 -- Break in film -- Doctor is now where surgeon was.  Camera view
from lower side of table at left.  Surgeon walks around table in front of
camera, camera follows him to table where he makes notes on pad.

13:06 -- Person I have been calling the doctor leans forward over table
clearly showing breasts pressing against cloth of suit.  Obviously a
woman.

13:10 -- Roll ends.  Whiteout.

13:12 -- Roll begins on creature's leg then camera pans up to head.
Closeup view from left as back flap of scalp is peeled down.  Doctor
still steadying head.  Cameraman walks to foot of table and then across
to right.

13:51 -- Break in film.  Closeup of cutting and peeling scalp from right
side.

14:00 -- Break in film.  View from foot of table.  Surgeon still cutting
scalp.

14:03 -- Break in film.  Closeup of head from left side.  Scalp fully
peeled. Doctor hands bone saw to surgeon.  Cameraman moves behind surgeon
to get vantage point over surgeon's right shoulder.  Surgeon begins to
saw at front of skull.

14:37 -- Surgeon's back and arm block shot.  Cameraman moves to his left
around back of surgeon for shot over surgeon's left shoulder.  Can't get
good shot from there, so goes back around surgeon's back to shoot over
surgeon's right shoulder.  Cameraman moves back to left again apparently
trying to find good shot then back to right again.  Surgeon is still
sawing hard at 15:14, so this skull must either be very thick or very
hard.  A human skull is very thin in front and would not be this
difficult to cut through.

15:17 -- Break in film -- Very brief view which seems to be of the top of
the head as the surgeon works to free the skullcap.

15:22 -- Break in film -- Sideview from left.  Skullcap has been removed
and brain is exposed, covered by membrane.  Surgeon uses fine scissors to
cut through brain membrane.

15:30 -- Membrane pushed aside by surgeon's fingers, brain fully exposed.
Surgeon reaches inside membrane and works his fingers around and under
the brain, working to free it.

15:39 -- Surgeon takes instrument from doctor and cuts brain free
underneath. Hands instrument back.

15:45 -- Break in film -- View from right side of head over doctor's left
shoulder as surgeon uses a spatulate tool to further free brain.

15:49 -- Break in film -- View from left toward head, high angle. Surgeon
eases brain out and slides into enamel tray held by doctor.

16:05 -- Break in film -- Brain shown in tray on table as doctor makes
notes.

16:14 -- Break in film --  View from right side closeup as lower brain is
lifted from skull by surgeon and placed in tray with rest of brain. By
comparison with a human brain, this brain shows a proportionally smaller
upper brain and larger lower brain.  The upper brain appears not to be
split into separate hemispheres, nor does it show the characteristic
furrows seen on the brains of humans and all advanced mammals.  This is
definitely not a human brain.

16:25 -- Break in film -- View from lower left shows surgeon pointing out
something inside the empty brain cavity to the man behind the window, who
then looks down and appears to be typing.  Clock, reflected in glass,
appears to show  11:45.

16:45 -- End of film.  Whiteout.

    Interesting, thanks for posting that.  I wonder what the crystal
    thing in the heart is supposed to be; have there been any speculations?
    
    The strange thing about this (again suspending disbelief for a
    moment) is that although the external appearance of the being may
    be more "human" (or "evolved human") than one would expect, there
    appears to be a great deal of major differences internally.
    
    And the internal differences are not necessarily what one would
    expect from someone who was putting together a fake alien.  That's
    what I keep coming back to.  If I were going to perpetrate such
    a hoax, for example, I might make more of the internal organs
    "identifiable" to the average person who's taken Biology 101.
    
    What would be the motivation for a hoaxer to make the brain look
    so different, for example, or the lower abdominal organs?  Wouldn't
    a hoaxer think it'd be neat to have a huge alien brain in there,
    with the usual hemispheres and convolutions, but bigger, like in
    the typical sci-fi "brain movies"?  Wouldn't a hoaxer want to haul
    out alien intestines instead of a series of "spongy" organs?
    
    What are these dark eye covers?... some kind of contact lens to
    shield their eyes from radiation or excess light?  Why are they
    so easily plucked off, apparently not an integral part of the
    eyeball?
    
    I guess we'd need to see the actual entire film to make any
    further evaluation of this (I haven't seen any of it).  I suppose
    it will be made available on video at some point, no doubt for
    a high price... :-)
    
    Chris

    The crystal thing is the quartz heartbeat regulation device.  Didn't
    anyone notice the announcer was a lot like John Cameron Swazey?  

    >> The crystal thing is the quartz heartbeat regulation device.  Didn't
    >> anyone notice the announcer was a lot like John Cameron Swazey?  
    
    Aha!  And conspiracy theorists take note, John Cameron Swayze just
    recently died around the same time the alien autopsy film surfaced,
    and supposedly of "natural causes"!  :-)
    
    Chris

    THis is just the autopsy part of the film/videotape, apparently there
    are a few more minutes of other scenes, plus some of the alleged
    wreckage a,d a scene of examining an alleged alien in a tent at the
    crash site.
    
    Santilli wants $69.95 for his tape, others are making it available 
    for $19.95 and less. Obviously Fox just showed a small portion of
    it, in order to bolster their spin on the story...     
    
    Making the rash presumption that this isn't just a load of bologna, 
    one of the theories I've seen floating around on the network is that
    perhaps these beings are not really "live" beings, but are some form
    of biologically engineered android or "worker" which doesn't resemble
    those who created it. Perhaps an expendable 'drone'. Such beings 
    wouldn't need or have sexual organs, and their method of feeding may 
    be simple high-protein pills or an IV solution, or perhaps literally
    'plugging in' to an electrical or chemical source to give them their
    daily requirement. No solid food taken in, no need for a means of
    eliminating the waste. Perhaps, they may not even require sustenance, 
    if they are truly expendable, perhaps they are created with a built in 
    food/energy source and when they run out, they expire. 

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" "FocusUFO-L"  2-OCT-1995 16:06:43.99
To:	FocusUFO-L recipients <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	Roswell - Alien Autopsy pt .1 (fwd)

ARE THE HUMANOID AUTOPSIES REAL? - Part 1

[Linda Moulton Howe spent much of the past summer in England and Europe. 
During that time she interviewed a large number of people regarding the 
now-famous Santilli autopsy film. This is part one of a two part report.]

An EARTH MYSTERIES NEWS Report
Copyright 1995 by Linda Moulton Howe
P. O. Box 538, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 
FAX: 215-491-9842    E-Mail:  [email protected]
Book & Video Information:  Toll-Free 800-707-9993

On September 7-8, 1995 in San Marino, Italy, invited scientists, doctors
and journalists met to view and discuss the controversial "alien
humanoid" autopsy footage first broadcast publicly in short excerpts
August 28, 1995 by the Fox network in the United States and Channel 4 in
England.

Longer unedited footage of one humanoid autopsy and craft debris,
allegedly filmed June 3, 1947 after a crash near Socorro, New Mexico,
were shown to conference participants, including Jesse Marcel, Jr., M. D.
-- whose father, former Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) intelligence
officer Jesse A. Marcel, has gone down in history as the officer
photographed holding pieces of silver debris collected from a ranch near
Corona, New Mexico in early July 1947. Dr. Marcel recalled the night his
father came home from work around midnight, excited about odd materials
he had found during a military investigation at a ranch. A "crashed
flying saucer" story made newspaper headlines. Then the Pentagon said it
was nothing more than a torn weather balloon. But flying saucer rumors
persisted; and a nurse at RAAF told Roswell mortician Glenn Dennis she
assisted a medical examination of non-human bodies.

Over the decades since 1947, controversy has raged about government
cover-up of extraterrestrial contact and retrieval of non-human bodies
and disks. But no one had ever offered photographic evidence until
London-based music video producer Ray Santilli purchased some old black
and white film reels. The film contained two autopsies of nearly
identical humanoid beings, each with six fingers and six toes. Santilli
bought the film from a retired cameraman in the United States who said he
"was assigned to Intelligence, reporting to the Assistant Chief of Air
Staff" from 1942 until 1952. The cameraman "JB" told Santilli that on the
orders of Major General Clements M. McMullen, Deputy Commander of the
Strategic Air Command in Washington, D. C., he filmed the exterior of a
silver disk, three live humanoid bodies, one dead body, and broken struts
and panel debris at a crash site ten miles southwest of Socorro, New
Mexico -- not Corona.

The date of the Socorro incident, according to JB, was June 3, 1947 -- a
full month before the now-famous Corona-Roswell crash story of July 1947.
The implication is that there were at least two different UFO crashes on
two different dates in 1947, requiring two different government
retrievals of bodies and craft.

Out of nearly 200 film reels averaging 100 feet or 3 minutes each, the
cameraman said he kept out 22 reels for special processing because of
lighting problems. The bulk of the processed film went to the Pentagon.
JB said no one ever came back for the remaining reels. Fifty years later,
in his eighties with deteriorating health, JB decided to sell the
less-than-perfect film to help his granddaughter financially. To date, JB
refuses to go public for fear of repercussions to his family.

At the San Marino, Italy conference organized by Roberto Pinotti,
Director of Italy's National Ufological Center, two autopsy specialists
attended. Unedited scenes of one autopsy were viewed on videotape. (The
second autopsy is controlled by a German financier named V. Spielberg,
who provided Santilli with the money to purchase the film on the
condition that he be able to keep a select portion for his own private
collection. Spielberg has not agreed to release that portion yet.)

No sexual organs were visible on the torso. An opening in the pubic area
suggested a female if compared to human anatomy. No belly button could be
seen and one of the autopsy specialists noted that the excision from
throat to pubis was a straight line without cutting around a belly button
depression. Santilli said the same characteristics applied to the second
humanoid and wondered if the absence of belly buttons meant that the
nearly identical beings had been produced by cloning.

When the humanoid body was cut open, doctors at the Italian conference
noted the skin separated and then adhered around the scalpel as human
tissue would. The doctors said that fluid seeping from the cuts suggested
the autopsy was either done within a few hours of death or the body was
perhaps chilled quickly after death for transport to the autopsy
location, which the cameraman said was in Ft. Worth, Texas. The fluid
color was red like human blood, the cameraman told Santilli.

After the chest and abdomen were opened, the most dominant feature was a
large, round, solid mass on top of all other internal organs. Dr. Marcel
was sitting next to me during the screening and said, "I've never seen
anything like that before. And where are the intestines?"

Doctors at the Italy meeting agreed that the internal organs and brain
tissue were not recognizable as human. That opinion challenges the
genetic anomaly hypothesis because human anatomy is generally consistent
from body to body even if there are genetic problems such as Turner
Syndrome. Tissue was placed in containers of fluid, most likely for
preservation and later examination under a microscope. If tissue and/or
organs were weighed before preservation, as normally done in autopsies,
those scenes are not in the film excerpts.

One puzzle is a small, oval-shaped object cut from inside the chest
cavity of both humanoids. Santilli says the cameraman described it as
crystal-like, but knew nothing about pathology or chemistry results. A
surgeon in the first autopsy stuck his finger inside the object  as if it
were hollow. According to Santilli, this crystal structure is more
visible in the second autopsy.

Also more prominent in the second autopsy, Santilli said, is an
examination of the pubic orifice in which a surgeon reached his gloved
hand inside the body cavity and extracted a white glob that had strings
or tendrils attached.

Santilli said the second humanoid appears slightly smaller than the first
and its skin is more blotched and wrinkled. The humanoid skin color was
grayish-pink, according to the cameraman, as humans might look after
death. In both autopsies, the surgeon used a tweezer-like instrument to
remove dark-colored membranes from the humanoids' eyes, and placed them
in round containers of fluid. The exposed large eyeballs were rolled up
into the head, so the iris/pupil configuration was not visible.

The humanoid had a very large wound in its right leg from the hip to the
knee and what appears to be injury holes on the side of the left leg. If
the cameraman's statement is correct -- that three humanoids were alive
at the Socorro crash site, were taken to Wright Field near Cincinnati,
Ohio for study, remained alive for one month before dying in early July
1947, and then were flown to Ft. Worth, Texas for both autopsies, which
the cameraman claims he filmed -- then how was the humanoid injured? 
Speculation has included rumors that the being was shot by a powerful
rifle or machine gun from behind, implying that the beings might have
been considered military captives.

This same injured being's right hand appeared to be nearly severed from
its arm. At the San Marino meeting, Dr. Corrado Malanga, a chemist from
the University of Pizza, pointed out that when the video frames are
studied carefully one by one, some early frames show the right hand
severed and some later frames show the hand partially connected to the
wrist. Yet, a clock visible in the surgery room and in a window
reflection appears to define aforward time sequence of approximately an 
hour and 45 minutes. Was there regeneration of tissue? he asked. Or some 
other explanation?  In all these severed locations -- the wrist, the leg 
and the opened torso -- it was difficult to discern skeletal structure 
because white bones were not visible.

Dr. Malanga also analyzed the broken panels and struts in the debris
footage. On film, three rectangular panels about 24 inches long, 16
inches wide and 3 inches deep are laid on a table. The imprint of two
six-fingered hands side by side are imbedded on the surface of each
panel. At the center of each palm is a Y-shaped pattern of four small,
raised circles or knobs. At the four divisions between the five fingers,
there are four more slightly larger knobs. Those four seem to glow more
brightly than the smaller ones. A single raised knob is placed exactly at
the end of the thumb and each of the six fingers. Above the thumb knob is
a small arc engraved in the panel. Carved above the five finger knobs is
a longer arc. Above each finger arc are six more raised knobs in slightly
different patterns per hand. A second arc is carved above those knobs.

"Those panels," Santilli told me, "are what the cameraman said the three
live humanoids were clutching to their chests when the military and
medical teams arrived in the early morning hours of June 3, 1947. The
cameraman called the humanoids 'Freaks' and said 'each had hold of a box
which they kept hold of in both arms close to their chests. They just lay
there crying, holding the boxes. They were protective of their boxes, but
we managed to get one loose with a firm strike at the head of a Freak
with the butt of a rifle.'"

Dr. Malanga said that computer enhancement of the broken ends of I-beam
struts and the panels in the debris footage showed the fractures were not
like wood or metal, but more like a complex plastic polymer might break
apart. The panels and I-beams reflected light as a man rotated them for
the camera and Dr. Malanga hypothesized that perhaps the material was a
metallic crystal or unknown crystal-plastic substance. Dr. Jesse Marcel
emphasized that the 3-inch wide Socorro film I-beams are much larger than
the small half-inch struts handed to him by his father back in July 1947.

Dr. Marcel also pointed out that the symbols along the sides of the
broken Socorro I-beam struts are made up of lines and dots raised above
the I-beam surface. He said he remembers that the violet-pink symbols he
saw were solid images printed or carved into the I-beam. German publisher
Michael Hesemann compared the I-beam symbols with Greek and ancient
Phoenician. There were some similarities. "It was unfair," he said, "for
the television programs in the U. S. and England to sarcastically suggest
that 'video TV' was spelled out, as might be in a clever hoax." Hesemann
pointed out that no one knows whether the symbols are read from right to
left, left to right, or vertically from top to bottom or bottom to top.

Hesemann also received directions from the cameraman through Ray Santilli
in July 1995 and traveled to a site ten miles southwest of Socorro, New
Mexico. Hesemann showed photographs of a large area where vegetation was
sparse compared to the surrounding environment.  Hesemann said he thinks
that the hot, possibly radioactive soil was dug out and filled back in.
He plans to return in December 1995 for an archaeological expedition to
dig into the site and "see if there is anything left from the 1947 U. S.
military retrieval and cover-up of a UFO."

BOOKS AND VIDEOS 
by Linda Moulton Howe Productions
can now be ordered by toll-free phone.
Please call:  800-707-9993

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Date: Mon, 02 Oct 95 14:03:52
% To: FocusUFO-L recipients <[email protected]>
% Subject: Roswell - Alien Autopsy pt .1 (fwd)
% From: [email protected]
% Reply-To: FocusUFO-L <[email protected]>

    Hmmmm..... I think I'll go have a donut now.

    You'll turn into a Lardassian 

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 19-OCT-1995 17:12:17.43
To:	FocusUFO recipients <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	Flaw in Production of Alien Autopsy

FLAW IN PRODUCTION OF ALIEN AUTOPSY

The alien autopsy was faked, there is proof that it was filmed on a set
with two cameras and edited together to look like a single camera take.
The story has always been that an unidentified cameraman did all the
filmwork on a Bell and Howell 70 "filmo" hand held camera.  There is
direct evidence of at least two cameras being present.

Last week the video tape of the production from _For the People
Presents... UFO Update Fall of '95_  was mailed out. It contains an
intact sequence of the film contents with SMPTE timing codes superimposed
on each frame.  This allows us to reference each frame of the video
exactly.  There are two images which prove that there were at least two
cameras involved in the production:

01:05:25:15   and  01:10:45:28.

See http://www.uwf.edu/~stankuli/alien/autopsy.html 
to compare these images.

The earlier frame is found in a sequence of 16 frames which are out of
place by 5 minutes in the videotape.  The pathologist had just finished
the long central cut of the abdomen and there is a half second
flash-forward to the ear-to-ear incision over the top of the head.  This
can not be a mistake of processing from the original film into video
media, because the later sequence around 01:10:45:28 shows the same
incision being made over the head but from a different angle from the
earlier.  There had to be two cameras filming the overhead incision, it
could not have been done by a single cameraman as claimed.  The shot from
the steeper angle (01:05:25:15) was probably intended to be discarded as
the pathologist's headgear obscured the end of the cutting motion.  The
one from the angle of the table was better to show the motion.  There are
probably more perspective errors in the production.

Look at these frames and you will see what the Fox production _Alien
Autopsy_ with Jonathan Frakes  either missed or supressed in their
broadcast last september.  Certainly the earlier sequence ended up on
their cutting room floor.

This discovery was made when Dr. Stan Kulikowski II, a research scholar,
was reviewing the video with graphics specialist, Bruce Whitmarsh.  Dr.
Kulikowski has been doing some studies of the UFO phenomena popular in
the Gulf Breeze area.  Mr. Whitmarsh is a former combat photographer and
film director for the Navy and was providing his knowledge of the filming
techniques used by the military and used by film specialists at the
University of Southern California, where Bruce studied cinematography.

"What caused me to be suspicious of the single camerman story was that
there was never any shot which showed the fourth wall of the room they
were supposed to be in," said Whitmarsh.  "That suggests a film set
rather than a real hospital room.  Stan then pointed out that there
really were two walls missing: the one to the left of the alien and the
other at her feet.  We were searching for other walls when we noticed the
strange half-second clip inserted at 5 minutes after the long belly cut."
Comparison of the two images of head incision are impossible with a
single camera.  "This looks like a student film production, done on a set
with with several cameras then edited to look like one with a lot of
flashes and deliberate film errors put in to disguise the production
shifts."


-----
send submissions for the mailing list here   -->  [email protected]
send list commands (un/subscribe, etc) here  -->  [email protected]
send private email to the moderator here     -->  [email protected]

    
    Whew!  Well, I'm glad they cleared that up.
    
    

    Does this mean I have to give up donuts?!?
    
    {groan}

    
    That note in .117 is total bull$#!t. Not that the story it
    was about wasn't also bull$#!+, but at least it was not quite
    as transparent!!!

    The SMPTE time code (SMPTE stands for the Society of Motion
    Picture and Television Engineers) was intially defined for
    projector synchronization and film editing in the 1960s.
    It involved counting the sprockets on the film to determine
    the run-length. When video-tape came into use, each frame
    was encoded with a frame marker (first on the audio tracks and
    later on a video baseband similar to the way HiFi is encoded
    on VHS); the frame marker consists of the frame location
    counter (hour:minute:second:frame), some start and stop bits,
    and some "user bits". The user bits were eventually standardized,
    in the 1980s, to hold reel titles and other useful information.
    SMPTE was also widely adopted by the music industry. Initially,
    it was used to synchronize sound-tracks to moving picture.
    Later, it was pressed into service as a way of synchronizing
    two multitrack recorders. Today, SMPTE time code is supported
    by a number of MIDI sound cards that you can buy for a PC
    or Macintosh, and it's the preferred way of synchronizing
    MIDI with recorded "live" parts.

    Anyway, this history lesson has nothing to do with what's
    wrong with .117, it's only background information. Notice
    where it says that SMPTE time code was _superimposed_ on
    the film. That's because SMPTE TC didn't exist when the
    film was supposedly made. There was no time code on the
    orinal fim!!!! So how bloody hell can you conclude that the
    film was false from the time code when there _WAS_ no time
    code?

    I can't believe some of the pathetic wankers out on Internet.
    It's why even though I'm a full-fledged nutter, I hardly take
    any of the Internet people seriously.

    -b

    
    .120

    >(SMPTE stands for the Society of Motion
    >Picture and Television Engineers)
    
    I knew that!  Frank Zappa taught it to me!
    

    
    <-- Oh yeah, well I had breakfast with Frank Zappa once!
        (I did; at the Copley Plaza hotel in Boston; he chain
        smoked and drank coffee at a most impressive clip!)
    
    -b

    I have to give up the Internet now?!?
    
    {groan}

    
    Psssst...Brian!  Listen, tell me something (it'll be our secret;
    I won't tell anyone)...
    
    ...is Leon Redbone really Frank Zappa in disguise?
    

    
    You'll find more reliable reading at the bottom of your tea cup.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Nope. Because, Leon Redbone is alive and Frank Zappa is dead.
    In fact, you can hire Leon Redbone to come sing in your living
    room if you want. The guy who's managing his tour is named
    Gary Davis and he lives in Ohio. I'm not sure what the tour
    dates are, but you too, yes you, can get your very own, private
    rendition of "Shine On, Shine On Haarrrrrrvest Mooooooooon,
    Up In The Sky"
    
    -b

    
    Leon Redbone supported himself as a pool shark during his days in
    Toronto.  I'm sure he'd love to fleece me.
    
    But Frank is not dead.  He faked his death so that he could live
    full-time as Leon Redbone.
    
    I have proof of this.
    
    Stop looking at me like that.
    

    Frank Zappa has left the building!

    ZZZ    Frank Zappa has left the building!
    
    Oh???  I didn't know you worked at ZKO!

    
    By the way, I wasn't kidding. You really can get Leon Redbone
    to sing at your house... he's doing the same thing Patrick
    Moraz and Gary Davis did with the "Chat Tour." They were
    also thinking of doing it with Steve Howe (Yes) and David
    Torn. I imagine the amount of money involved for getting
    Steve Howe though would be "significant". Gary also has someone
    out from the old "Hatfield and The North" doing a similar
    tour... can't remember the artist's name though.
    
    -b

    
    .130
    
    I don't doubt that; however, I don't think I can afford him at
    this time.  Should circumstances change, I will be sure to contact
    him.
    
    :^)
    

    John, all this talk about fleece these last few days and making me
    wonder boutchoo.  

    
    I'm just feeling a little woolly, is all.
                                  

    
    	Could be a b-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-d sign.
    

    Re .120:
    
    The point of the note in .117 isn't that the time codes are
    inconsistent; it is admitted they are superimposed and some edits are
    apparent.
    
    The contradiction pointed out in .117 is that there are TWO images of
    the SAME physical act from DIFFERENT angles.  The time codes are given
    as references to the frames that show this contradiction, not as
    evidence of the contradiction.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    mebbe the alien being autopsied is in fact the late Mr. Zappa...

    Life is cruller than fiction.

    
    
    How come yer eyes are glazed, Glenn?

    
    do-nut start filling up this disk!!!!
    

University of California NEWSWIRE

3/19/1997

Contact:
Stuart Wolpert ([email protected])
Harlan Lebo ([email protected]) (310) 206-0511

NEW UCLA RESEARCH CASTS DOUBT ON ANCIENT LIFE ON MARS

     New research by UCLA scientists who studied pieces of the
meteorite from Mars that landed in Antarctica -- using UCLA's
high-resolution ion microprobe -- raises serious questions about
whether the meteorite contains any signs of ancient life.

     "We have come up with three possible scenarios, and none of
the three looks especially conducive to life," said Laurie
Leshin, a UCLA geochemist in the department of earth and space
sciences, who will discuss her research at the international
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston on Wednesday,
March 19.  "If you stretch the imagination, you may be able to
argue that one of the three scenarios may be consistent with
life, but even under the most charitable scenario, you have to
stretch the imagination pretty far."

     UCLA's ion microprobe enables scientists to learn the exact
composition of samples. The microprobe shoots a beam of ions --
charged atoms -- at a sample, releasing from the sample its own
ions that are analyzed in a mass spectrometer.  Scientists can
aim the beam of ions at specific microscopic areas of a sample
and analyze them. The microprobe was used in recent months to
determine that life on Earth began at least 3.85 billion years
ago and that Mount Everest and the Himalayas evolved as the
highest mountain peaks in the world some 15 million years later
than scientists had believed.

     Supporters of ancient life on Mars argue that evidence of
primitive life is associated with crystallized carbonate globules
in the meteorite. 

     Studying bulk samples of the meteorite, advocates concluded
the carbonates could have formed at temperatures cool enough to
sustain life.  Other scientists have argued, based on the mineral
chemistry of the carbonates, that a higher temperature could not
support life.

     "We carefully correlated the chemical composition of the
carbonates with their isotope composition, which cannot be done
in bulk samples where they are mixed together," said Leshin, a
Rubey faculty fellow at UCLA.

     Leshin and her colleagues -- Kevin McKeegan, a UCLA research
geochemist; and Ralph Harvey, a research scientist at Case
Western Reserve University -- are the first scientists to
individually pinpoint a wide range of carbonate compositions from
the meteorite and analyze their oxygen isotopes.

     "What we found," Leshin said, "is that these two seemingly
unrelated data sets -- the chemistry of the carbonates and their
isotope composition -- are in fact related.  Any theory that
explains the carbonate formations must also explain the variation
in isotopes -- oxygen-18 to oxygen-16, and the calcium content.

     "When we placed the samples in the ion microprobe, we found
strong evidence that the first formed calcium-rich carbonates
contain the lowest ratios of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16," she added.

     Leshin said the findings provided hints to the conditions
that prevailed when the carbonates formed billions of years ago. 
The scientists have produced three theories, which will be tested
over the next several months, to explain the findings.

     The first theory  -- which would explain the isotope
variations detected by the ion microprobe --  shows that the
environment where the rock was located on Mars when the
carbonates formed contained a very limited amount of fluid, which
consisted largely of carbon monoxide rather than water.  If this
theory proves to be correct, it virtually rules out
the possibility that the meteorite contains any signs of ancient
life because water is necessary to support life, Leshin said.

     Under a second theory, which also seems to be plausible, the
environment from which the carbonates were formed on Mars
contained a substantial amount of fluid that interacted with the
meteorite.  If that is correct, then the variation that the ion
microprobe detected in the isotope ratio of oxygen-16 and
oxygen-18 would most likely be explained by temperatures that
were variable, rising above 200 degrees Celsius -- far higher
than could support life, Leshin said.

     "Under this scenario, even if the carbonates were at 0
degrees when they neared final crystallization, the temperature
was boiling when they started forming," she said.

     Under the third theory, the fluid on Mars that interacted
with the rock was largely carbon dioxide when the carbonates
started forming, and largely water when they were fully
crystallized. This theory does not seem conducive to life either,
but makes it more difficult to exclude the possibility entirely,
said Leshin, adding that under this theory, the argument for
ancient life is "conceivable, but not persuasive."

    I know I haven't read enough about this, but I've never accepted
    the contention that this meteorite is from Mars at all.
    
    What exactly is the mechanism by which a piece of Mars launches
    itself into escape velocity and makes its humble way to Earth?
    
    Even if such a thing were possible, how would we determine beyond
    a reasonable doubt that this hunk of rock is indeed a piece of Mars?
    Have we ever actually examined a piece of Mars, to serve as a
    comparison standard?
    
    Sorry to be cynical (who, me?), but I always took this as a funding
    grab by the "space-ies" to keep their little sandbox well stocked
    with toys.
    
    Chris

>    What exactly is the mechanism by which a piece of Mars launches
>    itself into escape velocity and makes its humble way to Earth?

Impact. Any sufficiently large thing striking a planet will blast largish
amounts of that planet into space. It's then just a matter of right time and
right place for it to come down to Earth.

Several meteorites have been linked to the Moon, based on samples brought
back on Apollo missions. The Mars meteorites are an extrapolation of that,
which is where it gets fuzzy...

    Hmmm.  Well, thanks for the info.  For now, I remain... skeptical. :-)
    
    Chris

    I must admit, I questioned how they could possibly determine that a
    piece of rock was from Mars.

    
    	By the copyright stamp, of course.
    

    > I must admit, I questioned how they could possibly determine that a
    > piece of rock was from Mars.
    
    
    Top Ten Ways Expert Lab-Coat Scientists Know The Rock Was From Mars:
    
    
    10.	"Toy Story" three-eyed Martian doll was lying on the ground nearby
    
    9.	Top of the rock unscrewed, revealing green Martian Death Ray
    
    8.	Authentically autographed by astronaut Pete Conrad
    
    7.	Characteristic "M&Ms" wrapper found under rock
    
    6.	Little polar ice caps and canals easily visible even at low power
    
    5.	Contained DNA from Orson Welles' gall bladder
    
    4.	Bill Nye and Leonard Nimoy fought over the last piece
    
    3.  President Clinton denied it, then verified it, then denied it
    
    2.  Chocolate on the outside, creamy nougat on the inside
    
    1.	Rock was redder than Ted Kennedy's nose
    
    (Cue ooo-eee-ooo theme from "One Step Beyond")

    > I must admit, I questioned how they could possibly determine that a
    > piece of rock was from Mars.

Seriously, that it came from Mars is very widely acccepted.  The isotopic
content matches that from the Viking lander.  Mars has a much smaller
gravitation well (only 11% of the mass of Earth) and practically no atmosphere
so a large meteor hit could dislodge debris into solar orbit, some of which
were in earth-crossing orbits.

Other meteorites are felt to be from the Moon and the asteroid Vesta (we are
much less certain of that since we don't have known samples of Vesta).

The big question with that rock isn't where it came from, but whether those
"thingies" in it might have been life.

    so then, it could be vesta. there's no way to tell for certain.

re .148:

I suppose it could, but it would require the remarkable coincidence that
Vesta has the same isotopic content as what the Viking lander found on Mars.

    
    	You mean you've never removed a rock from one location and put it
    	in another?
    
    	Maybe a martian left one of his "lucky rocks" on Vesta during one
    	of his visits.
    
    	Martians are funny that way.
    

SKY & TELESCOPE NEWS BULLETIN
APRIL 11, 1997

A EUROPAN OCEAN?

Galileo's close flyby of the Jovian moon Europa in February has
provided solid evidence for liquid water or slush under at least part
of the moon's ice crust. The best images show a broken jumble of slabs
kilometers across that have been "rafted" and tipped. Geologists estimate
that this activity could have taken place as recently as 1 million years
ago. Overall, the scene looks like the disrupted pack ice found in arctic
seas on Earth, and it's thought that a large reservoir of water lies
as little as 1 or 2 km below the moon's surface. Calculations suggest
the tides raised by Jupiter are heating Europa's interior, enough to
keep water from freezing. In fact, there could be more liquid water
under Europa's skin than on the entire Earth.

The combination of a subsurface ocean and continuous interior warmth has
heightened speculation that life is -- or at least was -- possible in
Europa's murky waters. Oceanographers point out that vast microbial
colonies thrive on Earth under the sea floor and deep underground,
completely cut off from the Sun. Europa seems to possess similar
conditions. But Galileo is unlikely to settle whether life exists on
Europa -- that will be the task for future exploration.

    <-- Liquid water?  Is there another type???
    
    
    Mike
    

  well, there's 30 million sentient beings in Canada, after all

  bb

    Was that some sort of insult?

    Vapour? as in steam