Article/Document:

Alien Autopsy Film Review - Kevin Randle

Kevin Randle

original source | fair use notice

Summary: To understand the autopsy footage, it is necessary to look beyond it. For example, we can look at the story of how the film fell into the hands of UFO researchers.

Kevin Randle

author's bio

To understand the autopsy footage, it is necessary to look beyond it. For example, we can look at the story of how the film fell into the hands of UFO researchers. Given what we know about the handling of highly classified materials and what we have learned about the handling of film stock that is used to photograph classified events, it seems impossible for that much film footage to have disappeared for so long.
What this means is that when a classified project is to be filmed, the frames are counted before the filming and then each frame, whether used or not, must be counted again. Someone would have noticed that so much film had disappeared. Someone would have been searching for it so that the cameraman, whoever he was, would have been questioned about it. That fact that he wasn't should raise a red flag for researchers.

That leads directly to another problem. Only Ray Santilli knows who the cameraman is and Ray isn't talking. Without the name of the cameraman there is no provenance for the film and without the provenance, we are left with a broken chain of custody. That means, simply, that we cannot connect it directly to any event at any time. This too, should raise a red flag.

The cameraman's story, as offered originally has changed. Some of those changes are minor and have been attributed to a secretary who transcribed the taped interview. However, those changes are suggestive of a tale that has been invented rather than one that is remembered. This changing tale raises a red flag.

There have been long discussions about this in other arenas. I have reviewed much of it in THE RANDLE REPORT, a book I wrote in 1997. It was about that time that Philip Mantle, a British researcher and one of the leading proponents learned that the tent footage, a few minutes of film that allegedly showed a preliminary autopsy in the field and in a tent, was a hoax. According to Mantle, he had talked to one of those who participated in the creating the hoax. Today even Ray Santilli has admitted that the tent footage is a hoax. This raises a red flag for me and is a major problem for the whole autopsy. If a part of it is an admitted hoax, why should we not conclude that all of it is a hoax?

In fact, Santilli has done little to help validate the film. Kodak has suggested that if they were given part of the film, they would be able to determine the age. Chemical analysis of the film stock and of the processing methods could tell us when the film was developed. While such a comprehensive analysis wouldn't prove the film was authentic, if it was shown to have been developed in 1947, that would take us a long way in validating it. All Kodak wanted was a small section of the film with the alien on it to prove that the film they were testing was from the autopsy footage. That Santilli has failed to produce that film for independent testing is highly suspicious. This raises a red flag for me.

We could go on in this vein. All these facts, and a host of others, argue against the autopsy being authentic. The cameraman violated the security regulations, violated the law, and then sold the film to Santilli. He didn't want his name associated with this because he hoped to avoid paying income tax on the sale. First, keeping the classified material is a federal crime. Second, revealing its existence is a federal crime. Finally, attempting to avoid income tax is a federal crime. None of these crimes would take the IRS or the FBI long to solve, if the autopsy is real. There would be only one man's name that would be associated with this and the federal agencies would have access to that information. They could have arrested the man the moment they learned that he had sold the film and attempted to avoid paying taxes on it. And, they could prosecute without ever admitting that the film was real. They merely had to was arrest him for income tax evasion. All this, too, raises a red flag.

So we move onto the film itself. There are those of us who believe that the autopsy was conducted in a cavalier manner in a very short period of time. Here was an event that, if not unique in human history, had been repeated only once or twice, yet the doctors seem to cut into the creature without taking a proper look at it. They seem to know more about the anatomy of the creature than they should. They remove the black lenses over the eyes as if this was exactly what they expected, but there is nothing to suggest why they would expect that.

The procedure inside the autopsy room does not meet the standards established for filming military autopsies. According to those involved with recording military autopsies in the 1940s, the filming required a motion picture camera that was on a fixed tripod mount, a second handheld motion picture camera and finally a man with a still camera to record everything specifically. These procedures were always filmed in color, rather than black and white. Though these protocols were violated, there are no security reasons for them to be violated. This raises a red flag for me.

The interior of the autopsy room looks, not like an autopsy room, but like a "dressed" set. It means that someone unfamiliar with what an autopsy room should look like made his best guess and then filled the room with those props. There is a Bunsen burner on the table, one that seems to be lighted, though there is no reason for it to be there. This raises a red flag for me.

The autopsy procedure seems to be rather cavalier. They are hacking at this creature, removing the organs, but making no real attempt to document where each organ was and how it related to the other organs in the body. Since it is clear that they would not be getting additional specimens for examination, it seems that they would have been more careful. This raises a red flag for me.

According to the clock on the wall, only a couple of hours pass during this autopsy. Something of this nature, because it would be a unique situation, should have taken a couple of days rather than a couple of hours. This raises a red flag for me.

There is nothing in the procedure, nothing shown in the available film, that suggests that it is authentic, but there is plenty to suggest it is not. I have seen nothing in the specific autopsy footage that would make me change my mind.

When we look at the debris segments of the film, there is nothing there to suggest anything out of this world. We see nothing in the footage that would help us authenticate it and the one man in the film is never shown in full face. He can't be identified.

The debris seems to based on the descriptions offered by others. Dr. Jesse Marcel suggested he saw I-beams with symbols on them and there are some I-beams with symbols. But rather than the delicate, small things Marcel described, these are heavy, thick things that bear no resemblance to Marcel's description.

More important, and what to me is the fatal blow for this segment of the film is the revelation, on one of the I-beams, of supposed alien writing. Clearly visible, in a stylized form, is the word "video". It is quickly recognizable, and anyone who has seen the footage can easily spot the word. What are the odds that an English word would be clearly visible in the limited number of symbols on an alien I-beam. This raises a reg flag, and suggests this portion of the film is a hoax.

What this means is that the tent footage is an admitted hoax, the debris segment is undoubtedly a hoax, and the autopsy footage is filled with problems. All of this suggests, to me, that the autopsy is a fake and is useless to us as a research tool or physical evidence that we have been visited.

Couple it to the failed statements of the cameraman, the lack of provenance for the film, the violation of military regulations, and the reports, rumors, and failed validation, not to mention all the red flags, and the only conclusion, at this point, is that the autopsy is a hoax.