The fallout from the latest revelations about the Alien Autopsy "film" hoax has begun.
Duck and cover(up), indeed!
From UFO Updates today, Philip Mantle offers some more thoughts on the alien autopsy hoax (original here):
Dear List Members,
For the benefit of those who have not seen the recent Sky One show featuring Santilli I thought I might take this opportunity to point out some of the nonsense in more detail.
Santilli & Co claim that they had 22 reels of film of which only 5% was left intact. 55 is an awful lot, but Santilli claims that only a few frames were used in the AA film and the rest was a reconstruction. Santilli & co could not recognise these few frames which they claim were part of the AA film. The 'oxidisation' of the film is also laughable.
Santilli & co could not remember the flat (apartment) where they claimed to have filmed the restoration/reconstruction. I've just spoken to a friend who has been in movie effects all his life and he can not imagine how two 5ft alien dummies plus all of the props were smuggled into a flat without anyone seeing them and it all being filmed in one day. Very implausible to say the least.
The chap who made the dummies is John Humphreys. Santilli & Shoefield stood over him constantly like a pair of minders and never allowed him to say anything without them being there. I can tell you for sure that they did not want him to spill the beans.
The so-called original frames that Santilli showed, after keeping them in a small tin, were never held up to the camera so that we could see what was on them. They could have had anything on them. And of course, Santilli has never had any frames of film independently scientifically tested. As Santilli pointed out, he was only interested in the commercial aspects of the film. Are you telling me that if he even had one authentic frame of film that he would not have sold it to the highest bidder?
Just for the record, I have been working on another TV show for a UK terrestrial broadcaster and the only reason that it has not yet been broadcast is because of legal action that was brought to prevent it. I cannot tell you who took out that action nor the content of the show, but I think you can probably guess.
Last but not least, I've recently interviewed someone here in the UK whose testimony could well sink Ray Santilli's ship. He will tell all exactly how the whole scam started.
Make no mistake about it, there is and never was any original film, and there is and never was any former U.S. military cameraman. Some of you might be aware of the second world war saying: "Loose lips sink ships". Well, there's a few 'loose lips' talking to me and they have been for quite some time now and Santilli's ship is sinking fast.
Just for the record, John Humphreys said he made the alien brain from a sheeps brain coated in jelly (jello). That's why it looks like it does.
Again, this all seems pretty definitive, n'est ce pas? It also seems perfectly logical to all of those people (including me) who long ago looked at the film, smiled, and said to ourselves, "hoax".
Alas, not everyone is convinced. Ed Gehrman, the most vocal and persistent defender of the "film's" authenticity (hehehehe...) has finally responded (original here"), and he continues to wave the AA flag:
First of all I was very surprised by Ray's remarks. After reading Philip's comments, I immediately did a frame by frame visual analysis of the new AA DVD that Neil Morris has developed. I was looking for any evidence that Ray had faked, hoaxed or tampered with the footage or added frames or that it was a type of restoration as he now claimed. A restoration or hoaxed presentation can't be accomplished without leaving some clues that this has been attempted. I don't think it's possible to fake something like this and not leave any incriminating evidence behind, no matter what Ray suggests.
My belief in the authenticity of the AA footage has never depended on Ray's veracity, although I did believe his story of the cameraman and how he acquired the footage and I still do. Dennis Murphy, Neil Morris, Theresa Carlson, William Sawers, Andrew Lavoie and Bob Shell have been and continue to be my main sources for verification. These are researchers who have actually spent time examining the uncut, AA footage. They have reported internal clues that speak for legitimacy. I'm sure they'd agree that Ray's turnaround leaves many unanswered questions.
There's still the matter of the crash site that I discovered after following the cameraman's directions. How did Ray ever imagine or "restore" these directions from the fabric of his imagination? He has never been to Socorro! The cameraman existed; the crash site and drawings are evidence.
How many of you remember the Kiviat Productions lawsuit against Chuck Harder? Chuck simply copied the uncut AA footage from a Santilli original tape and began selling it during his radio talk show for ten dollars saying that it belonged to everyone inthe US since our tax dollars funded the project. I bought one and still have it. Harder was sued for sixty million dollars butthe case was settled, in Chuck's favor, just before it went tocourt. This avoided a Federal court decision on the validity ofSantilli's copyright. It's not clear but Kiviat probably ended up paying Harder's legal fees ($150,000) as well.
I doubt Ray could establish clear copyright on stolen, top secret Army film unless he claimed, as he does now, that he had revised and restored the footage and that it was a creative endeavor. So what this boils down to is copyright protection.
"What this boils down to is copyright protection."
No, Ed, what this boils down to is this:
1.The film is a hoax;
2. You and others were conned; and
3. There is no "crash site".
There's no harm in #2. We've all been fooled at one time or another. To err is human, after all. If you can admit your mistakes, and learn from them, then being fooled once or twice actually has a beneficial effect on a person.
To persist, however, in saying something is real, in the face of such overwhelming evidence that it's a hoax, shows that a person isn't really interested in the truth, but rather is interested in being right - even if he or she is the only person left on the face of the Earth that thinks they're right.
As I said the other day, however, Ed et al don't have to worry - there are enough gullible people in ufology, and enough people willing to believe any conpspiracy theory, no matter how outlandish, that the Alien Autopsy "film" will always have a small, devoted group of believers, even as the rest of the world - including most of those who once thought the "film" might be real - have moved on.
But that's what happens in ufology, where "inconventient facts" meet "the will to believe" (as Karl Pflock would say) far too often.
I'll keep you updated as this story develops further.