The
Alien Autopsy
Film

Real or Un-reel ?

By Joe Longo, SOC
President, International Combat Camera Association

This is the first SOC article written expressly for our web site. It developed from a TV show called “Sightings” where I saw SOC member Joe Longo interviewed concerning the Alien Autopsy film. Joe was contacted because of his experience in the military as a combat cameraman during the time of the Roswell incident. Joe wrote the following article and directed me to people with deeper interests in this phenomena, most of whom communicate with others via World Wide Web sites and e-mail. This article then expanded to include those believers and non-believers alike so that you the reader may develop your own conclusions. This being an on-line document, we have included web site URLs and e-mail addresses of many of those whose opinions help round out the article. Also, we will be able to update it as 'new' information comes to light. (See the Theresa Carlson information below which was received just before we posted this article on-line in December 1997.)

— Michael Frediani, SOC

“Both skeptics and supporters of the film's authenticity have been engaged in heated debate over Mr. Santilli’s heretofore refusal to provide samples of the film for official scientific analysis and potential authentication. Doubters and skeptics have maintained that if the film were authentic, and Mr. Santilli knew it to be so, he would have long ago provided the tiny amount of original film necessary to validate its age and pedigree. Many skeptics have pointed out that all Santilli actually needed to provide would be a small hole punch from a single frame of film, and that since he has always refused the film must be a fraud.”

In his broadcast conversation with Dr. Leir, Rense mentioned that Mr. Santilli has thus far not agreed to provide that much-discussed hole punch of even a single frame of the Alien Autopsy film for analysis; to which Dr. Leir replied that he (Santilli) has indeed now finally done so. According to Dr. Leir, he and his colleague Derrel Sims, the “Alien Hunter” UFO investigator from Houston, were recently invited to lunch with Ray Santilli who discussed with them a number of issues about the Alien Autopsy film and its history of public exposure since he first acquired it. 

Leir stated that Santilli indicated major unhappiness and disappointment over how the film's release has been received and furthermore expressed great disappointment and frustration with the entire process of exposing it to the general public. Dr. Leir revealed to Rense that Ray Santilli then passed into their possession 4 frames of the original film on the strict and absolute condition that it be thoroughly analyzed by the best appropriate scientific experts and that the results of the analysis of the film and any remainder of the four frames themselves be returned to him without public disclosure of the results; that he, Santilli, would decide if, how, and when those results will be made public. 

Leir and Sims agreed. Dr. Leir stated to Rense that the analysis and evaluation will be performed by the best scientific and technical experts in the film industry and the results will be sent directly, without public comment, to Ray Santilli per the agreed upon conditions. Rense further inquired of Dr. Leir why Santilli has never come forward himself and offered a sample of the original film for analysis. Leir stated Santilli explained that if had he done so this long after the film's release he would no doubt become the center of a new controversy over his timing and would probably be accused of media manipulation and charges of hoax...allegations he has no desire to experience.”

End of text from UFO REPORT

(The questions were asked in Japanese and were later translated using an available Japanese language text print-out of all the questions. The stilted nature of the wording is due to the word for word Japanese-to- English translation. There was no Japanese voice-over on the uncut version, making the cameraman's words much easier to decipher. The interview runs about 12 minutes long, the broadcast interview ran about 6 minutes. Taking into account all available information, we think this is the complete Alien Autopsy Cameraman Interview.)

The following are Mark L. Center's views concerning this 'interview:'
“I’ve played this thing over and over again — this is about as complete as you’re going to find. What do I think? His responses seemed a little too scripted to me. He did say that he was nervous but think about it. If somebody asked you about something you did in the past, then you wrote yourself up some reference notes and thought about what you were going to say, would you then read the notes? I don't think so. Just in the preparation alone you'd have much of it memorized and a little free form speech would come out. I didn't get any feeling he was thinking while he was speaking. Then again I don't know the guy or his speech patterns.”

1. Three highly qualified former military cameramen (ICCA) have pointed out major flaws in both the film itself and the story surrounding it. (Details below)
2. Santilli changed his story concerning how he acquired the film after he was caught in a gross inconsistency on a French TV show.
3. Security markings disappeared from the film after being labeled phony by military photo experts.
4. False claims have been made by Santilli concerning authentication of the alleged film.
5. The mysterious "collector" cited by Santilli as the reason for the films unavailability is actually a business partner of Santilli’s.
6. Noted special effects artists unanimously believe the body to be a special effects dummy.

Mr. Allen Daviau, the cinematographer who filmed E.T. appeared on the video and attempted to discredit the fellow who shot the original film. Mr. Daviau is likely a grad of UCLA's film school and reminds me of Old King Cole who 'called for his pipe and called for his bowl and he called for his fiddlers three". "You, up there on the scaffold, put a double scrim on that 5K lamp so the light looks like sunshine. Charlie, check my f/stop. I want it on 5.6. Hank, on cue, I want you to roll-focus from the hood ornament to the driver.'

That's what it's like being a feature cinematographer; you order up the skill as you need it, reserving your own for creative thinking. I do not know Mr. Daviau who obviously is an extraordinary feature photographer, but no documentary credentials for him were even suggested. In fact, his book-learning shot him in the foot. His comments regarding focus on the "alien" completely eradicated his credibility of any cameraman who shot film prior to the '60s. He was too young to have done so. I have never filmed a picture with the dignity of ET but I have been director of photography on three features and camera operator on four. I have been special effects director/technician on about twenty. And, like him, I have worked on a Spielberg project. Those are my feature credentials. I filmed for The Huntley/Brinkley (news) Report on NBC during the 1960s and filmed and edited perhaps fifty or sixty documentary pictures, not counting documentary film work in the USAF in the '50s. Those are my documentary credentials.

The Navy combat cameraman, Dr. Roderick Ryan, who appeared on the video offered comments diametrically opposed to Mr. Daviau's. I agree with him since he and I have similar experience. Mr. Daviau, owing to his limited handheld camera experience, commented that he found it suspicious that when the photographer went in for a close-up of the "alien" that the pictures were out of focus indicating that he was trying to hide detail. Unlike Mr. Daviau, Dr. Ryan had used cameras of the '40s and '50s, Bell Hails (sic), which did NOT have through-the-lens viewing, an attribute that all Panavision/Panaflex cameras, the Hollywood standard, have today. These characteristics would be akin to the comparison between a point-and-shoot camera and an expensive Nikon or Leica. If you get too close with a point-and-shoot the picture will be out of focus, period. If you get close with a Nikon you can clearly see through the reflex finder that it's necessary to refocus. In his excitement or perhaps his negligence, the man shooting the "alien" simply forgot to focus, since looking through the finder one sees a perpetually sharp image. (Shooting at fifteen feet or more the image is typically always in focus anyway. That's not the distance at which he was shooting). Shooting with Eyemo's and Filmo's (Bell Hails 35mm and 16mm news/documentary cameras which the government used exclusively) offer two problems to the cameraman that reflex (through-the-lens viewing) cameras do not present. First and most important is the focus problem which we have just discussed, and second is parallax.

Parallax is the differential distance between the taking lens and the viewing lens. Getting quite close to the subject causes the image to shift off center. A good "old-days" cameraman was accustomed to both problems and, if not rattled, simply made the corrections by Kentucky windage and went on his merry way. Estimating the distance visually and setting his lens accordingly would be satisfactory in 95% of the cases. Since depth of field would take up the slack he had the advantage of not needing to focus through the lens. He, in fact, would not consider these problems, just routine activities such as loading the film and removing the lens cover.

Furthermore, these cameramen had to tote their equipment to and from their assignment, load and unload it, set up lights when necessary, take meter readings and set their lens, put the camera on the tripod (if he had the chance to use one), and succeed at shooting a single take of each shot, win, lose, or draw. In news and documentaries of that era the camera was usually handheld. The Hollywood cameraman doesn't have a single one of these responsibilities, moreover, he can call for 50 takes (or more) if it's necessary to get the shot right."

Joyner continues, "I am told that Kodak has stated that the film stock was 1940's vintage. For technical reasons, neither can that be faked (except possibly by Kodak) nor could the film be kept frozen for 50 years then used without discernible deterioration.

I am familiar with the work of the special effects crew who were interviewed on the show. They are an admirable group who know their stuff. Still, if the "alien" is a hoax, they might have been fooled by the same techniques they use to fool you and me; that is duplicate dummies and camera cuts. Camera cuts were not considered in the discussion but can be a vital element in the success of a mechanical effect.

In the video I saw the "alien" as a complete unit and only her left arm was moved. I saw a close up of the face and head and only the eyelid was moved slightly. I saw the top of the head when an incision was made. I did not see a single-unit camera shot that showed all of these features. I saw the doctor's arm with a saw in the hand but I did not see the skull sawed nor the skull cap being removed. I did see a handful of goo being placed on a tray referred to as brains.

The effects crew discussed the thousands of dollars that such an effects mechanism would cost today and the fact that it couldn't likely have been done so well in the 1940's. Maybe so but having to do it today with elements available only in the '40s, here's how I would do it:

Using clay and plaster I would make a full-figure mold of the "alien," then the night before I would cast it in non-rising dough and bake it only briefly to toughen the skin. I would use wooden dowels for "bones" to give it stiffness and the left-elbow and wrist joints. A separate head and shoulders would be cast using similar dough for skin layered over a plaster skull or I would cast dental alginate over the skull. Accordingly you could watch both the skin being peeled back and incisions made in the skull in a single shot. The consistent wetness they discussed and the blood (very important elements) could be baby oil injected under the skin with a hypodermic needle. The evenly-wet brains and other interior parts would have been chicken fat and beef liver. Likewise with the chest opening which would have been supported with hardware cloth. Dental alginate is used to make fine-detailed molds. It was available then and serves well, when died (sic) appropriate colors, as fresh body parts.

None of these materials last long so they would have to be made up only a few hours before use. A gruesome but possible alternative would be to use an intentionally distorted human corpse. But, in a nutshell, the "alien" could have been faked quite well and convincingly even in the 1940s.

The artifacts, i.e., the phone, the tray, the medical instruments, the table, the clock, and the medical dress could all have been researched and found or replicated. The finding would be relatively easy given enough time. The research would be a serious problem but good prop people do it every day."


Joyner continues with his dissertation, "Dr. Cyril Wecht, the pathologist of high regard who appeared on the show, didn't see fit to cast aspersions on the medical techniques as observed and seemed rather secure in his belief that the patient in question was not human.

The important element here is not to make a decision on the basis of something not understood. The proper thinker will draw his conclusions on the basis of what he knows to be true and what he knows, according to reason, what is or is not possible.

Many of us are quick to presume that life can't exist under certain conditions or that light speed is a universal speed limit. It is always important NOT to make decisions or extrapolations based upon what we DON'T know. Doing that is called jumping to conclusions. The prospect of several species of aliens coming to Earth at the same time -- or perhaps at all -- according to Dr. Carl Sagan, is remote. The different appearances of the several of whom we have photographs do appear different enough to be separate species.

A compelling experiment might be, however, to find an African Pygmy about 70 years old, slump-shouldered and scrawny, perhaps displaying a four-day beard. Stand him beside a beautiful six-foot, golden-haired, Finnish 24-year-old maiden with perfect proportions. Show the two of them, naked, to an extraterrestrial from the planet Twerg who is totally unfamiliar with earthlings and he'll probably presume the two of them are from different species. (Perhaps our friend from Twerg would be less likely to be fooled if the Finnish girl, like the Pygmy, had only two feet instead of six)."

Harry Joyner's e-mail address is revsin@ix.netcom.com or palmerS856@aol.com
VJ Enterprises © 1997

MC: "What exactly did you see and under what circumstances did you see it?

LC: Two gentlemen (Producer Dick Link and Ray Santilli associate Gary Shoefield) walked in off the street and asked me to try and date some old footage.

MC: What did they show you?

LC: They had an old 16mm film can with them. It was obviously an old can, I’ve seen them before. I looked inside and there was anywhere from 50 feet to 100 feet of footage in the can. I pulled out a few feet of the film stock and inspected the edge of it. I matched up the geometric codes with our chart and I told them it was from either 1927 - 1947 - 1967. And that's about it.

MC: Did you see any image on the film?

LC: I never looked at the footage for image, only the codes on the edge. We get a lot of 'walk-ins,' people asking for this type of thing. I’m very busy and I just wanted to give them what they wanted and get them out as quickly as possible.

MC: Did they discuss the footage and its image contents with you?

LC: No.

MC: How long did your exchange last?

LC: I'd say 15 to 20 minutes tops.

MC: Anything else to add?

LC: Mark, I’m kicking myself in the ass that I didn't look at the film for image! I wish I would have looked at the image on the film! I was asked to try and place its date and that's what I did. Those geometric codes do not prove that the Santilli footage is from that time period. It only gives us a reference that whatever they showed me might have come from those time periods. I have no idea if what I looked at was the Alien Autopsy Footage."

"In what way does this new information affect the Santilli footage story? Well, taken at face value it would seem that early on, Santilli was willing to entrust 50 to 100 feet of the most amazing and potentially important footage ever found to these two gentleman. He allowed them to take this footage all the way to the west coast of America just to have Larry Cate check out the edge codes. Strangely, at least two more Kodak offices (London and Denmark) were contacted by the Santilli group and given descriptions of the edge codes, over the phone.I find it dubious that Santilli would risk sending 50 to 100 feet of the

footage to America (for such a cursory inspection) and then "phone in the edge codes description " to the London office, which is in his own back yard. Also at this time an untainted relationship was being formed with Kodak (and) they had no idea what they were looking at. What better time than that to look into the footage more closely with their "unknowing" disposition. As it stands now, Cate feels somewhat... mis-quoted, to say the least.

Currently (regarding the testing process), Santilli has gone on record to state that he would not work with a company (Eastman Kodak) that has had long-held contracts with the US Military and Government. This is a very telling statement in support of the hoax scenario, given the fact that the information Santilli needs to help date the film is held by Kodak and is proprietary to Kodak.

Even more incredulous is that when others (most importantly, film expert Bob Shell), asked for some footage to scientifically test, Santilli handed out little strips as his samples. These strips do not indicate lineage to the original footage and are therefore useless. Santilli now states that he has no footage left to make available for testing.

Obviously he had "something" to test in 1995 and quite a bit of it at that. Larry Cate looked at it, and held it in his hands, whatever it may have been. In the end what this proves is you can't put much stock in a 'info-tainment' piece like the Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction.

Addendum: Currently there are a few people based in Europe, with "pieces/segments" of what Santilli says is Alien Autopsy footage. To my knowledge these people have done nothing with this footage. No attempt (that I’m aware of) has been made to "study" "verify" or "authenticate" this available footage.

The logical question is, "Why?"

Click here for full size	A.) Film roll label reads: underexposed for first 50 feet--Force x 2 stops...
Click here for full size	B.) One reel reads: Reel #52 Truman: (it was alleged that President Truman was present behind a glass partition during the autopsy) #85 filter 2/3 stop, indicating the amount of light that would be blocked by the filter. If 16mm B/W film was used, why would he use a #85 filter--a filter to convert color tungsten film to daylight?
Click here for full size	C.) Reel #64 July 1947 Autopsy #2-Head

Click here for full size

End of Carlson text.
Theresa Carlson email, web


FINAL COMMENTS FROM MARK L. CENTER

Mark L. Center, email

"I got involved with UFO's in 1990. As an avid fan of special effects the Alien Autopsy interested me greatly. Previous to this I published an eclectic free newsletter about music, movies, diving, food, sport, strange interests, etc. I met Video Dave Aaron, Director of the UFO Audio / Video Clearing House and the rest just fell into our laps. We secured a copy of the uncut Autopsy video before Fox showed it and I spent the next three years on the internet making contacts, publishing well received newsletters and making video tapes available to those interested. I have spent over $3000 researching and publishing the "real" Alien Autopsy story. I’ve sent out almost 400,000 pages of information and hundreds of video tapes free of charge to whomever was interested.

Now with Theresa's newest report (see above), at least for me the story seems to be getting some closure. The difficult thing about researching this subject is its romantic nature.

Please see my review of Carlson's report.
Carlson's Site.

The opinion I and most others hold; 'There has to be other life out there,' carries with it depth and profundity. I personally believe in UFO's, Unidentified Flying Objects. There are things in the sky that defy identification. I do not believe that we have been visited by ET. During my 7 years of research I have found few unanswerable "events". But I have found a multitude of fraud, hoaxes,
liars, cheats, and a quick-to-believe public: a public being deceived by 'evidence' (video tape, channeling, etc.), which has been manufactured for nothing more than profit."

Mark L. Center's credo: "Make no decisions on any disseminated information. Watch all. Read all. Believe none. Do your own research."

1. Not in color. (At least, not the print I saw.) Sorry, gang. Several color processes were in common use many years prior to the supposed Roswell Incident. There exists color newsreel footage taken by military cameramen under hostile enemy fire!! And it taxes my credulity beyond the breaking point to be asked to assume that the US military (for Gawd's sake!) would photograph such a historically important event in monochrome. EVEN IF the military didn't run its own secure labs (and it does - there's one in Colorado) such an autopsy would have been shot with B separations from which color could later be reconstituted. Gang, there's simply too much information that could be deduced by future medical folk from color images to leave this one to B Sorry: STRIKE ONE.
   
   
2. While we're on the monochrome gag how come the grain is the size of basketballs? The US military can't get the budget to pile all the lumens they need and then some into something the size of an ad-hoc operating room? (Don't even THINK of starting in on me with the 'heat from the lights' nonsense. If you can't figure out how to keep a well-lighted room cool you need to spend more time with your Tinker Toys. What do you think the Corps of Engineers are for? And if keeping the Space-i-man cool was that big an issue, how come we don't see steam from the breath of so much as one of the 'surgical personnel'? Hmmmmmmm?) Even if we subscribe to the remote possibility that the Morons In Charge would have settled for monochrome wouldn't it occur to the cameraman to specify fine-grained B in the interests of maximum image quality? Or were they having a sale on the high-speed stuff? Hey, Meeeeester! Sometheeeng preeetty feeeeeshy goin' on here! And it should qualify for a STRIKE all on its own.
   
   
3. Handheld? I damnwell doubt it. Presumably the US military has the wherewithal to conduct such an autopsy in a controlled, restricted-access environment. And presumably the highest possible quality cinematography would be demanded considering this is a (supposedly) once-in-a-millennia opportunity. If I was DoP on this gig there'd be fifteen or more tripod-mounted cameras (including one straight overhead and some running in slow-motion) grinding through enough film to send all of Kodak's executives into a hysterically happy retirement. And maybe one or two roving Eyemos. You could achieve a lot of that with 3, possibly 4 quality camera operators. I find it impossible to swallow that there aren't MILES of this footage around. And I’m weary of Conspiracy Theories that would suggest it's been destroyed In The Interests Of National Security. Sorry: STRIKE TWO.
   
   
4. The Art Department screwed up. Photographic considerations aside, what was in FRONT of the camera was faulty. (Remember those thousands of details that needed detailing?) In the background of AT LEAST one shot is a telephone. Not a big deal in and of itself. Aaaaah, but THIS telephone has a coily cord between the body and handset. Not only is the phone style from a period years after the supposed autopsy footage was shot, the coily cords used on that style of phone and the type of plastic insulation required to make such cords weren't invented until long after the Incident. Any good Art Director or Production Designer should have picked up on that. Yes, the military had coily hand-mike cords coated with rubber and this isn't one of them. [Diameter of the coil is wrong] And a sharp camera operator should have picked that up. Sorry: STRIKE THREE.
   
   And that's all you get in the Big Leagues.
   
   
5. The autopsy procedure was doubtful to say the least. The surgical technique evinced by the team of 'doctors' would do credit to a remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but that's about it. Further, considering they're embarking on the world's first non-speculative exercise in Xenobiology, there is no attempt even made to work out the logic of how the internal organs, musculature, or skeletal structure work. Fellas, there's better technique shown in your average high school frog dissection.
   
   
6. Containment procedure was nonexistant. Now, The Andromeda Strain hadn't been written at the time of the supposed Roswell Incident, but Mr. Herbert George Wells HAD written The War of the Worlds. And unless there's another conspiracy lurking in the history books, a certain Mr. Orson Welles and his Mercury Radio Theatre had scared the bejeebers out of much of the world with it. War of the Worlds was a well-known if not familiar story at the time Roswell supposedly occurred. For those of you who skipped out on even the Classic Comics version, the punch line, gang, was that the Martians DIED because of exposure to Earth's germs and bacteria. {Though it's never adequately explained by Mr. Wells or his homonymic namesake why Earth's population didn't succumb to the horrors brought here from Mars.} It seems ridiculously improbable that, out of all the people involved with the alleged Incident, NOT ONE of them had heard of WotW, or seemed to think it possible that an alien could be suffering from some sort of head cold that could ERADICATE life on this planet, and that appropriate steps and equipment - Cut-Rite Wax Paper, for instance - might be taken to contain it and/or properly protect the surgical team. Sorry, this 'autopsy' thing just looks worse and worse.
   
   
7. There are a few folk in one of the motion picture craft categories specializing in the creation of alien life forms for movies that have been unconscionably coy when interviewed about the genuineness of the Roswell footage. Folks, IF the Roswell incident did happen, it would be one of the most significant events in the history of Homo Sapiens. For one thing, it would knock many of the underpinnings of several world religions into a cocked hat. IF it were true and anyone tried to be all cutesy about it, I'd say that should be a hanging offense. Sorry, this ain't a game of jacks we're talking about here. We're talking about something that should be the subject of serious, sober, scientific enquiry. Cutesy is the set dressing for fraternity pranks.