Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Alien Autopsy Film a Hoax (Well, D'uh)!

This should come as no surprise to anyone with an ounce of common sense... alas, this does not include all ufologists (more on that below):

From UFO Updates today:

From: Philip Mantle
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 22:35:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:18:06 -0400
Subject: Santilli Changes His Autopsy Film Story

Tonight showed the SKY ONE TV show 'Eamon Investigates - AlienAutopsy. The show starts of with Santilli still claiming that hesaw real film of aliens and that he purchased it from a formerUS military cameraman. However, there is now a change in the story. Santilli & his colleague Gary Shoefield claim that it took 2 years to buy the film & that when it finally arrived inLondon 95% of it had 'oxidised' and the remaining 5% was in very poor condition. They therefore decided to 'reconstruct' it based on Santilli's recollection and a few frames that were left. To do this they hired UK sculptor John Humphreys. Humphreys tells of how he used sheeps brain for the brain and a lambs leg for the leg joint.The cameraman's interview film is also a fake. The man in the film is someone they literally brought in off the street and gave him a prepared script to read from. Santilli and Shoefield continually try to insist that the AA film as we know it is a restoration, but in fact it was made by John Humphreys. To try and justify they claim that some of the surviving original frames are seen mixed in with the reconstruction/restoration. Interestingly neither Santilli, Shoefield or Humphreys could point out where and which are these frames when viewing the AA film. Santilli admitted that the six-fingered panels in the debris film were the result of 'artistic license' an he even produce done of the I-beams from the boot of his car. The debris film was also mde by John Humphreys. In fact, Humphreys is the surgeon in the film, and a former employee of Shoefield's in behind the window. He's GarethWatson, a man I met several times in Ray's office. Nick Pope and mysels appear briefly in this show and I dare say Nick will have hi own comments to make. For anyone interested inthe AA film I do recommend watching this if you can. I've takenpart in another show for Channel Five in the UK the content ofwhich I am not permitted to disclose. After watching this tonight I can honestly say that I do not believe one word of either Santilli or Shoefield and I have no doubt that the film is nothing more than a complete fake. There is and never was any original film and there is and never was any US military cameraman. Santilli & Shoefield had little credibility as it was but now they have none.The alien autopsy film is dead and I hope to put it to rest, once and for all, soon. Watch this space.

Philip Mantle


Which brings us to Ed Gehrman, perhaps the most vocal defender of the "film" over the years. I'm one of many people who had to endure Ed's standard "you don't know what you're talking about, if only you'd just look at the evidence" line (just type in "Paul Kimball", "Ed Gehrman" and "alien autopsy" in the UFO Updates search engine - please note that I always treated Ed politely, with respect, even when he wasn't responding in kind).

Recently, he's been pounding Nick Redfern, Jason Gammon, Chris Allan, and others at Updates.

My favourite recent exchange is this one [original here]:

From: Ed Gehrman
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:54:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:04:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli & The AA Film - Gehrman

>From: Jason Gammon
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:35:02 EST
>Subject: Re: Santilli & The AA Film

>>From: Bob Shell
>>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:47:27 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Santilli & The AA Film

>>>From: Christopher Allan
>>>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:36:33 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: Santilli & The AA Film

[Allan]: Does anybody still expect that anything of scientific value will emerge from this film? If it had any real merit, it ought to have had a sound track, plus some identity as to the date and location of the filming, and the personnel involved. Then we could at least make a start on establishing its validity.

[Shell]: Thanks for the most incorrect, superficial, and downright ignorant post that I have seen on this List in a very long time. Nothing you say is correct, and if you had been paying attention to this thread at all, you'd know that. What a sad waste of bandwidth. Bob Shell

[Gammon]: Unfortunately the same thing could be said about those pseudo-researchers who desperately cling on to the notion that the AA film is authentic.

[Gehrman]: Jason,What makes a person a "pseudo-researcher"? There are about ten researchers who have been following the AA and collecting evidence and working together as much as possible. I guess we form the core of the AA pseudo-research community. I'm proud tobe a part of this group and to have worked with Dave Vetterick, Neil Morris, Bob Shell, and William Sawers, Philip Mantle, WendyConnors and others to try to figure out the AA puzzle. None of us are "desperately clinging" to the notion that the AA is authentic. We'd like the UFO community to reexamine their assumptions and give the evidence we've collected and honest break.

[Gammon]: Take a big step backwards Bob, turn your critical eye inwards, and look at the situation with a commonsense, down-to-earth mental outlook. No shred of evidence has been presented to validate any of the claims of Santilli or the supposed "Camera Man".

[Gehrman]: Then why not visit the following site and see where you think I'm in error. How could the cameraman supply directions, a map,and two drawings to a site in the middle of nowhere that accurately predicted the actual features and anomalies found there. http://www.thewhyfiles.net/gehrman.htm

[Gammon]: Instead, wehave a bunch of AA-cultists screaming that we sane people have to prove it is fake.

[Gehrman]: Cultists? I don't think we qualify. Why do you think we do?

[Gammon]: You, and other like-minded people, may have abandoned Science and Reason but I can assure you that many people have not.

[Gehrman]: Our evidence is both scientific and reasonable; the problem is that you haven't examined it. Your previous posts have indicated that fact. Ed

For years Ed Gehrman and others ignored the myriad flaws in the film. They went beyond just sitting on the fence about the "film" - they became proponents of its authenticity, and the authenticity of anything tied to it. In the process, they became increasingly critical of the vast majority of ufologists who had long since formed the opinion that the film was a hoax. Well, they must feel pretty silly today. At least I hope they do. There's nothing wrong with being wrong (Lord knows that I've been wrong before) - the problem comes when people like Ed go about promoting their pet cause or theory by tearing others down, often personally. When their pet cause or theory crumbles, these people, unlike those who were simply taken in but meant well (remember - everyone makes mistakes), can expect to take the fall too.

I once wrote to Ed, at Updates, that if the Alien Autopsy film was proved to be real, I would be the first person to offer a mea culpa. The exact quote, during an exchange where he was publicly trying to convince me to do a film on the subject, was [original here]: "If you prove Stan, and I, and so many others,wrong, I'll be the first to issue a public mea culpa, even as I try to explain to my fiance how my "unbelief" let another potential cash cow slip on by, and why we're "vacationing" at home, instead of San Francisco." One wonders whether Ed has a mea culpa up his sleeve.

Of course, in ufology, nothing is ever really dead - witness the fascination a small group still have for the Aztec con, or, even worse, Alternative 3, an admitted hoax. The Alien Autopsy hoax will no doubt similarly live on, with a very small core of true believers who will say something like, "the government got to Santilli".

Ignore them.

It's over.

It's been over ever since the "film" was released.

Paul Kimball

3 comments:

TAB said...

They've had ten years to dream up this latest version.
There's no proof as far as I can tell that the 'recreation' of the 'recreation' is anything more than a bad copy - it has ribs for a start.
Also in the dire 2006 AA movie, the story is that Santilli is living with his Nan and that the model is made from a mannequin in less than a week by his Nan's new boyfriend - what part of that is true?
It was considered a fake in 1995 and all the special effects artists contacted said 'if we knew who did this they would be welcome to come and work for us' meaning they could get well paid work and status from declaring. No one came forward. All the SFX people consulted said it was an expensive piece, and that they would have recognised the style. (Max Headroom was kind of famous afterall as a video construct).
At least now the story is that 'some' of the Footage is genuine - the cutting of the womb type sack and the prodding of the severed 'crystal' ring shape.
They say that's real because how else do you explain it?
Why would they choose to make a six fingered humanoid rather than an alien creature?
Is it fetishistic snuff or a hospital radioactivety experiment - or more likely a very odd humanoid.
They weren't making frankenstein's monster they say they were making a Roswell alien, so why doesn't it have three fingers and really big eyes.
That's a very humanesque body you've got there and yet enough unlike a human to really pose some questions.
I'm pretty darn sure no one made that so called 'original' that Santilli first showed us.
And this total monetary climb down is an embarrassment in the name of Mammon (the God of money).
A vague wave at the outside of a building, saying this was the location, and the crunch of a lamb's knuckle is not enough frankly to appease my mind that this could've been a human victim, and is interesting enough to suggest otherwise. How many times does polydactylism occur in all limbs with tiny ears, big eyes, a tiny nose and a large cranium. That's a very odd brain. You can say what you like now - sheep's in jelly or whatever, I put it to you that no one would've designed it like that purposefully in order to pass it off as an alien. It's an interpretation after the fact ten years down the line after my website - Rosunwell - has been open for three years putting pressure on them to come up with what happened.
I reckon it's uncomfortable so they laughed it off. What was all that with the gun to the head stuff and the German guy getting run over? Is that true, or is it all dramatic fiction.

TAB said...

Besides which, I thought the only people who chop up bodies into small pieces and leave them dumped in bin bags all over the city - are serial killers.
Enough said.

Anonymous said...

Genial brief and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you on your information.