Is the Roswell Film a Hoax?

Some Alternative Views

When one becomes a Web Site that covers this hot controversial film, you hear everything, and I mean everything. If a person has researched the Roswell Incident, they will find that there are certain aspect of the film, and the stories behind the film that don't quite fit what we believe is true. Some people may suggest that the aliens we have seen via the still images, maybe are not from Roswell, but I feel that is a story is true, then such contradictions would not be so obvious. In any case, I thought it is good to create a page that looks at some of the other positions related to the film.

Below is some information I received from a UFO researcher, who asked to be anonymous at the moment. All I can say is this person claimed they are a scientist and thus really dig deep for information. His bottom line conclusion about the UFOs and ETs was:

"By the way, I am not a debunker. I believe there are UFOs, and they get seen and tracked. They are not ET visitors, however, nor are they govt projects. They are spiritual beings, the same as angels and other mythological beings."

Re: the Santilli film
( Message #1 )

I can not reveal my sources, but

It was not made in the U.S.

It was made in the late 70's, 1980 at the latest It was known within the "government" (as a hoax)

It was offered to Vallee (and others) but never given to them


Re: the Santilli film
( Message #2 )

I will tell you one of my sources is Richard Doty, aka "Sparrow" in the Aviary. Of course, Doty's reputation in ufology is less than stellar, but no one doubts that he was deeply involved in official intelligence ops. Even Victorian quotes Doty (misquotes him, actually). I can not tell you my other sources.

Here is a statement you can make, which I pass on to you without comment as to its source, and can neither confirm nor deny its validity. However, I have reasons to believe this is accurate and request that if you use it you do not use me as the source.

"According to reliable sources knowledgeable about classified operations, the following is known about the Roswell film acquired by Santilli:

The film was made in South America, most likely Brazil, in the late 1970's. It was funded by private concerns who are highly placed and who wanted to select one historical UFO case and develop it into an orchestrated leak of falsified government documents. Brazil was selected to provide a margin of safety concerning potential criminal prosecution should the individuals and techniques in the making of this film be discovered.

Roswell was selected because it had the benefit of the 1947 Air Force news release that a "flying disc" had been recovered, and yet had not been investigated further by Blue Book or any other official investigation unit. A cover story on Roswell was released to the National Enquirer, who published it in 1978. The purpose of this cover story was to generate public interest in Roswell preparatory to the release of the film. Stanton Friedman, Bill Moore, and Charles Berlitz became interested in the case and were similarly provided with carefully leaked falsified information.

AFOSI became interested in the case at this time because of potential involvement by foreign disinformation agents, and obtained a copy of the film. Following careful investigation, AFOSI determined that the film was a forgery. There was an effort to determine domestic involvement and the source of domestic funding and expertise, which led to the film being discretely offered by intelligence operatives to various ufologists such as J. Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Linda Howe, and others.

Because the government investigators had possession of the film and had discovered many facts about its source, the original perpetrators decided that it was too risky to leak the film to the public at that time. It has only been recently that the film was released in an effort to recover some of the original funding. However, it was still considered too risky to release it to U.S. interests, and the decision was made to release it to a foreign investor."

And from the Newsgroup I found .......

In this section you will find various insights from either the alt.alien.visitors or alt.paranet.ufo newsgroup that questions various aspects of the film:


From: John Blair Moore
Subject: alien autopsy
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 12:14:26 -0500

I apologize if this is repititious, but I think my first attempt to post this went elsewhere.

I have viewed the photos put up at, and what I saw sent up a couple of red flags. As a professional artist with some knowledge of movie makeup techniques, I'm afraid I don't regard these pictures as anything outside the capabilities of Hollywood technicians, now, or anytime in the last thirty years or so. In fact, I think there are a number of details that argue strongly that the body pictured is a figure of normal human proportions with rubber applications built up onto it.

The very things that people have been singling out as unsual, the enlarged head, the distended abdomen, and the extra fingers, have the appearance to me of built up appliances.

The fat thighs, mentioned several times as a deviation from the expected appearance of a "Grey", are another tip-off. Appliances in this area are just the thing to create the appearance of a convincing wound with depth. The built up top of the head provides the room for the large eyes, and also room to conceal an actor/actresses' head of hair. The enlarged stomach is an ideal way to create the appearance of making bloody cuts and scooping out internal organs. The hands, as far as I can see them, appear to me to be elongated in just such a way as would accomodate extra fingers and extended fingertips.

This last comment is just an aesthetic judgement, but I find the face to be a real disappointment. It looks to me like a cheap doll. the latex appliances molded to the face are smooth and unimaginatively sculpted. This is not high tech, ultra modern computer aided special effects stuff. Especially in black and white, which is particularly forgiving when it comes to obscuring details like color variations and textural mismatches, the look of this body could have been accomplished with molded latex appliances and greasepaint.


Return to NewsGroup Index

Subject: A. Victorian: "Santilli Film Definitely Disinformation"
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 21:57:42 -0400

(The following was written by Armen Victorian. Not by me. Usual disclaimers apply.)



On February 14 1995, in a letter to Mr. Larry Byrd of HUFON, I informed him that while maintaining strict confidentiality, he should warn his closest and most trusted group of researchers about the emergence of an active disinformation campaign, which would initially target the fringe groups and eventually engulf the UFO community. I had also warned Mr. Tony Dodd, the Director of Investigations, UFO Magazine, and Maria Ward.

Once before, I had notified (telephonically) another researcher (Dr. Jacobs), about another similar act much before it came to fruition. It was about Jim Schnabelšs (an active disinformation asset) underhanded approach on the subject of Abductions, and to warn Budd Hopkins.

This time, I was tipped off almost two months before Mr. Santillišs gambit hit the headlines. The initial source of the disinformation (as I was informed) was truly an American. The aliases he provided as his real name, Barnett and Bennett, indeed existed, and have been confirmed to me by the US Government. Once more, the Counterintelligence (CI) disinformation machinery seems to be in action. By utilizing dubious firms, exploiting fringe groups, gullible researchers such as Mantle (who only a few years ago in a written communication was willing to become my apprentice) and a few others, right candidates akin to financial gains, and by keeping serious researchers well clear from any opportunity to scrutinize or examine the well-orchestrated footages, is steaming ahead. The CI disinformation machine is quite satisfied to reward handsome sums from the publicšs kitty to its eager-to-serve elements, for a marketable product and a job well-done. Another MJ12 affair once more is incarnated. Furthermore, Rick Doty (Sparrow from the Aviary) has confirmed that the AFOSI was in possession of these footages as early as 1981.

The timing of Santilli's bogus footage is amazingly coincidental with the USAF's release. It is watering down the main issue and is politically shrewd. At the time when the release of the report is pending (in July), Santilli's toy could play a vital role in the ultimate outcome. For, if the GAO report proves to be supportive of USAFšs (I am led to believe it will be mildly critical), with another careful maneuver the US Government could make the majority of the UFO field appear true to the titles the tabloids have been calling them in their reporting. And if the report proves negative, then they can always lean on the statistical sales reports of the global marketing of these footages, and suggest that the ground was ready, so we released them. But, the crucial question still remains unanswered. The US Government would still maintain the genuine article. The battle (now much deepened) would continue within the UFO community. Once more, the US Government would be the clear winner.

A. Victorian

posted (not written) by Thomas Bergen

Return to NewsGroup Index

From: (Tony)
Subject: Santilli Film - The Truth
Date: 14 Jul 1995 12:19:48 GMT
( Followup to A. Victorian )

In article , says:

>(The following was written by Armen Victorian. Not by me. Usual
>disclaimers apply.)
> >=========================================================== >Furthermore, Rick Doty (Sparrow from the Aviary) has confirmed that >the AFOSI was in possession of these footages as early as 1981.
For the record, Doty ("Sparrow") denies speaking with Victorian about this matter. Victorian also fails to note that AFOSI having possession of these footages does not imply that they were involved in their manufacture. OSI's job is to investigate, and that is what they were doing. In fact, if Victorian is going to provide information from "Sparrow" and connect it with OSI, he should have also mentioned that the Satilli film footage was a known fake and was shot in South America.
>The timing of Santillišs bogus footage is amazingly coincidental with 
>the USAF's release. It is watering down the main issue and is 
>politically shrewd. At the time when the release of the report is 
>pending (in July), Santillišs toy could play a vital role in the 
>ultimate outcome.
For the record, the report has been released and contains a more credible analysis of Roswell than any of the thousands of pages written about it by those with their own axe to grind. If there is any disinformation on Roswell, it is not clear who is disinforming who. Part of the USAF reort contains interviews with the original developers of the Project Mogul balloons, who state how they were made -- including the material that was alleged to have "writing" on it.
>For, if
>the GAO report proves to be supportive of USAFšs (I am led to believe 
>it will be mildly critical), with another careful maneuver the US 
>Government could make the majority of the UFO field appear true to 
>the titles the tabloids have been calling them in their reporting.
Well, I'm afraid the US Government would not have to do much to make the "UFO field appear true to the titles the tabloids have been calling them..." Ufologists do a pretty good job of this themselves.

>And if the report
>proves negative, then they can always lean on the statistical sales
>reports of the global marketing of these footages, and suggest that 
>the ground was ready, so we released them.
Who is "they?"
>But, the crucial question still remains unanswered. The US Government 
>would still maintain the genuine
>article. The battle (now much deepened) would continue within the UFO
>community. Once more, the US Government would be the clear winner.
Ah, yes, once again there is no proof of any "genuine article," which can only mean that the US Goverment has succeeded in covering up what they must possess, and be the clear winner.


Return to NewsGroup Index

From: (PBStudge)
Subject: *Honest* Ray Santilli's $ymbology
Date: 13 Jul 1995 19:49:01 -0400

The Symbols in Santilli/Roswell Film

Good Day to the MIBS, Lurkers, and my friends in the *Lunatic Fringe*!

Neil Morris -->
Dept of Physics
University of Manchester writing about Socorro and the *infamous* UMMO
symbols, posted 29 Jun 1995: -->

>I have been looking at the (rather poor) .gif file sneaked off Ray  
>Santilli's Web site last weekend, before it disappeared, hopefully to 
> re-appear this weekend.   They DID say the images would be available 
> from July 1st, I think.

> Anyway back to the point, I looked at the drawings and a couple of 
> bells started ringing, where had I seen something like these before 
> in a UFO context, I think I finally found it/them last night...

>1)  Patrolman Lonnie Zamora's "Original" discription of the symbol he
>saw on the side of the craft in his 1964 Socorro encounter.

>"...una V invertido con tres lineas debajo...", which i'm informed 
>" inverted V with three lines underneath ... " draw it out and 
>then check it against the symbols in the drawing, very odd...

Poor Lonnie Zamora... the former law enforcement officer known for his dedication in the small town of Socorro, New Mexico...a five year veteran of the force...A God fearing man...A respected member of his church and in his community. A man who was was not interested in making a big deal over his sighting but was encouraged to inform the authorities by his Chief of Police. A man who moments after he claimed to have seen the infamous *egg* shaped object, appeared visibly shaken to New Mexico state trooper Chavez from whatever he experienced. Neil, Let's exam what some of the famous *scholars* of Ufology have said of the Socorro sighting (with a few caveats)....Copy rights remain the property of their respective authors, and that the information provided herein is posted for educational and research use only. Please purchase the cited books as an excellent addition to your own *LUNATIC FRINGE* library! X-8^)

From the book UFO's...And the Limits of Science by Ronald D. Story with J. Richard Greenwell Published by William Morrow and Company, NY, 1981 Pg. 79:

"...While the object was hovering, Zamora saw on its side some red markings which he described as ""...a crescent with a vertical arrow pointed upward inside the crescent and a horizontal bar beneath that."". He tried his radio but without success."...

By comparing the spanish translation provided by Neil Morris of Zamora's symbol to that of Story quoting Zamora ... "...a una V invertido con tres lineas debajo vs. "...a crescent, an arrow head, and a line..." don't add up do they?

But if you don't buy what Story wrote about Zamora's observation let's look at another source and help the good folks at *BU-LL-FORA* and Honest Ray out the TRUTH!!! Let's go to one of the entertaining books by a Klass guy:

UFO's Identified (by Phil Klass)

"....But Zamora did mention one detail, an "insignia" which he said he saw in the middle of the object, and which he also sketched immediately following the encounter. His sketch shows something that resembles an arrow aimed upward, enclosed from above by a semicircle and from below by a horizontal bar. The insignia, he estimated, was about two feet high. ....

It's an interstellar EMOTICON!!! Two other conflicting accounts surfaced.

Still, Neil might be on to something, as he is one of the lucky few who has seen *Honest* Ray's Paragon-Roswell disc symbols before they warped off into thin air. Neil, I wonder why *Honest* Ray keeps doing the...what did Vallee call it when it seems to happen....ahhh...The Ufologist-Strip Tease act? But, we believe Mr. Ray ("Honest, I'm not a whanking hoaxer") Santilli don't we? Ray wouldn't have posted some stills of the so-called Roswell Saucer Symbols from his "poor boy Bennet" celluloid collection and then yanked them so quickly without a reason would he? I'll tell you what Neil be a sport and do us a favor --get *Honest* Ray's permission to post this (rather poor) .gif file you've seen on to the net, for all of us potential customers to have a look at. I'm sure *BU-LL-FORA* and the rest of the Honest Ray travelling apologists roadshow won't mind if we have a go at helping identify the source of the secret Santilli symbols..will they? Let's help Mr. Mantle and BU-LL-FORA liven up *Honest* Ray's August Alien Peep show. AND SOMEONE CALL *VOLKER SPEILBERG* AND TELL HIM WE'LL HELP FOR FREE!!!

In the mean time, let's keep diggin Neil and look at something Vallee wrote in "Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact" (Jacques Vallee, Contemporary Books, Inc. 180 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60601) Pg. 37:

"...(as in the respresentation of the Arabic astrological sign for Venus on the object seen at Socorro, New Mexico, by patrolman Lonnie Zamora),..."

Now that's interesting! Neil!!! You may have found the source of *Honest* Ray's interplanetary babes... Venus!.... You know, identified as home by those sexy sirens seen by America's version of Billy Meier, the *first* U$ human contactee, *Honest* George Adamski, the man with the 8mm Bell and Howell. First Socorro, then Venus, then Adamski...what's next Mars? Wait folks it's about to get even better...

Neil Morris of Manchester (UK) wrote:
>I have been looking at the (rather poor) .gif file sneaked off Ray  
>Santilli's Web site last weekend, before it disappeared, hopefully to 
>re-appear this weekend. ...<>...>"...una V invertido con tres
>lineas debajo...", which i'm informed is..." inverted V with 
>three lines underneath ... " draw it out and then check it against 
>the symbols in the drawing, very odd...
Odd to be sure Neil. The symbols don't quite match. Even stranger is what Klass claimed the Chief of Police & Al Hynek thought about the source of the Zamora/Socorro vehicle. Find the books cited and read the account. Let's just say that some of the *expert* ufologists who looked at this sighting noticed that the Socorro little Venusian "humpt dumpty" having the flight problems came from the direction of White Sands and after lifting off and bugging out went back in the direction of White Sands. But Neil, If Ray Santilli's footage is enough and you want high weirdness read on!

Vallee's found out (pg.65-66, "Dimensions") that an identically described object had been seen earlier in the day at Tioga, NY. In a field...with a couple of hooded little people that posed a bunch of questions to a local farmer...and told him that they were from MARSnot VENUS! Guess what they wanted to talk to the farmer about Neil...FERTILIZER!!! Is it BS or what? Can you say UFOOLIGISTS Neil? First Santilli, then Socorro, then Venus, now Mars...

If the symbols you saw match Neil, maybe we can find those interstellar *Cydonian* farming carni-midgets piloting that nifty egg looking for fertilizer.

Tell me Neal, If say you or a member of *BU-LL-FORA* were to figure out that this stuff being peddled was disinfo left over from some twisted cold war campaign, or just another crude money making hoax what would you do? Ask some back water boy to bring up the matter in the House of Commons? Or maybe bring a civil complaint in the Old Bailey? But we are don't Neil hang on, and let's look at your number two observation:

>  2)  This ones a bit obscure but well....<> early 1966 
>in a suburb of >Madrid, Spain the second was taken in San Jose 
>Valderas again in Spain.
<> ...,3 verticle lines with a horizontal across the centre, ok 
>the ends of the lines are slightly curved out but maybe that was the >font the signwriter..:
HHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAAA!!!!....WHAT A HOOT! Sorry Neil.P I'm laughing because it is the UMMO symbol. You remember UMMO don't you? If you want to have a look at one of the UMMO pictures pick up Jacques Vallee's book "Revelations", flip to the pictures in the middle of the book and have a gander. And then when you are done go to the index and look up the UMMO listings. Start reading and find the bit mentioning a suspected Eastern Bloc (READ SOVIET and EAST GERMAN DISINFO) intelligence agency HOAX!

In short Neal, Is Ufology sometimes BS or what? Go ask poor Lonnie Zamora, or maybe the poor saps at Voronezh, or maybe some of the folks who are paying the long dollar, pound, or yen to *Honest* Ray and BU-LL-FORA.

My take on the *Honest* Ray/Mantle hyped footage is this; I've seen the pathetic stills leaked to various WWW sites. All I can say is what a laugh! Couldn't the creators of this kooky collage have at least hired someone or back engineered from the better methods used by the European arm of Madam Toussad's wax house? Those *aliens* look like someone must have used the same wax mold used for rebuilding Lenin's rotting stinking head after the WHITES got through him. You know maybe from the same folks who faked some Vietnam era flicks?

Poor *HONEST* Ray, I think someone's suckered him if he paid 160,000 US$ for the *true* boot legged copy of "Rosewell: The Ray Santilli Story.(the BU-LL-FORA vetted footage)". Perhaps someone peddled poor *Honest* Ray some hoaxed coldwar footage, I hope *Honest* Ray has a line on some of Poor Boy Bennett's ELVIS ghost footage otherwise he might be in trouble.. Let's help *Honest* Ray and BU-LL-FORA out the truth. Keep up your questions.

Happy Trails from the *Lunatic Fringe*! P B Studge

"...There's a sucker born every minute"....P.T.Barnum

Return to NewsGroup Index

From: (DRudiak)
Subject: "Alien" autopsy - human chromosomal defects
Date: 13 Jul 1995 01:11:21 -0400

For the past few months, there has been much talk of Ray Santilli's "Roswell alien autopsy" film. From images of the autopsy posted here and elsewhere on the Net, various people have commented how the body looks human, but strange. The ears are low and abnormal, the head protrudes, the eyes are large, the hands have 6 fingers, etc., etc. There has been speculation that the body is of a human with a genetic abnormality.

I've been perusing various medical textbooks (e.g., you can start with the Merck Manual) and have found that the body closely resembles individuals with an extra chromosome 13 or extra chromosome 18. Both chromosomal trisomy syndromes were first described in 1960 by Patau (chromosome 13) and Edwards (chromosome 18). Deletions of the long or short "arms" of chromosome 18 can also result in syndromes resembling Edwards' syndrome and are included for comparison.

Below is a summary of the textbook information compared to the "alien" photos and descriptions of the organs in various posts, including Santilli's pathologist report:

Prevalence of syndrome, life-span of individuals

1.  "Alien" - Consult "Hitchhiker's Guide ..."
2.  Patau's syndrome - 1:2200 to 1:6000 births; 1:1 males/females; 
    usually fatal - 80% die in first year; 95% by year 3.
3.  Edward's syndrome - 1:3000-5000 births; females outnumber males 3:1;
    usually fatal - 90% die in first year.
4.  Short Arm Chromosome 18 Deletion - Females outnumber males 2:1; 
    nearly normal life expectancy
5.  Long Arm Chromosome 18 Deletion - Females outnumber males 3:2;
    usually live at least until teens.
Ear position, shape
1.  "Alien" - Low set ears and abnormally-shaped
2.  Patau's syndrome - Low set ears, abnormally-shaped; deafness common 
3.  Edward's syndrome - Low set ears, abnormally-shaped
4.  Short Arm Deletion - Low set ears, abnormally-shaped
5.  Long Arm Deletion - Aural abnormalities (?)
Head shape, mouth, jaw, nose, face, hair
1.  "Alien" - protruding occiput (rear of skull); perhaps smaller than 
    normal jaw and mouth; appears to have overbite; no teeth (??); 
    small, underdeveloped nose with slight bridge; triangular shaped 
    forehead; bald.
2.  Patau's - Underdeveloped or no nose (arhinencephaly); moderate 
    microencephaly with sloping forehead; trigonocephaly sometimes 
    reported (triangular shaped forehead caused by premature closing of 
    medio-frontal suture, in which sides are flat and converge to apex 
    in front); wide sagital suture; cleft lip and palate common
3.  Edward's - protruding occiput; small jaw (micrognathia); small 
    mouth; cleft lip/palate may be present; head may be narrow in front; 
    infants may have fine downy hair on head and back
4.  Short Arm Deletion - Small jaw, round-faced, microencephalic
5.  Long Arm Deletion - Abnormally-shaped mouths, microencephalic, 
    midfacial malformation (dysplasia)
1.  "Alien" - reportedly not bilateral; possibly fused hemispheres.
2.  Patau's - Gross anatomic defects of brain, especially fused 
    forebrains (holoprosencephaly) and fused or absent rhinencephalon 
    (olfactory lobes); Patau's generally characterized by many midline 
    malformations of body; severe mental retardation
3.  Edward's and Deletions:  Severe mental retardation; microencephaly
Eyes, eye spacing, orbit, brows
1.  "Alien" - Eyes abnormally large (~35-40 mm) [normal = 24 mm]; 
    abnormally large iris/pupil (~25 mm) [normal = 11 mm]; eye opening 
    (palpebral fissure) abnormally large; orbit (eye socket) abnormally 
    large; may have lashes; appears to lack eyebrows; normally spaced 
    eyes; eyes appear sunken, or perhaps appear that way because of 
    slightly protruding brow.
2.  Patau's - Normal-sized or small eyes (microphtalmia) with many 
    internal defects; eye-openings usually slanted with epicanthal 
    folds, giving oriental or Mongoloid appearance; eyebrows usually 
    absent; supraorbital ridges (brows) usually shallow; wide-set eyes 
    common (hypertelorism); eye defects may cause congenital glaucoma 
    (severe congenital glaucoma could result in enlarged, distended eyes 
    or buphthalmos = "ox-eyes")
2.  Edward's - Normal eyesize or perhaps small (microphtalmia); 
    palpebral fissure may be short and oblique with epicanthal folds; 
    eyes may be abnormally wide-set; orbit may be shallow and brow 
    ridges underdeveloped (hypoplasia); many internal ocular abnor-
    malities may be present; may lead to congenital glaucoma.
3.  Short Arm Deletion - Eyes may be small, widely-set, with epicanthal
4.  Long Arm Deletion - Eyes may be widely-set with epicanthal folds;
    may have congenital glaucoma.
Hands, fingers
1.  "Alien" - Polydactyly: 5 fingers and a thumb (extra "ring finger" 
    appears abnormal); general human shaped hand/palm; fingers long and 
    narrow; middle finger tip appears somewhat tapered.
2.  Patau's - Polydactyly common; hyperconvex (pointed), narrow 
    fingernails common; fingers may be hyper-flexed, but not to same 
    degree as in Edward's
2.  Edward's - Fingers in infant may be clenched with index finger
    possibly overlapping middle finger; possible webbing or syndactyly 
    (fusion of 2 fingers); polydactyly not reported; small finger may 
    lack distal crease; thumb may be absent or underdeveloped; nails may 
    be under-developed (hypoplastic)
4.  Deletions - ???
1.  "Alien" - Human-shaped foot; At least five toes; heels appear 
    prominent; prominent arch ("rocker-bottomed"??)
2.  Patau's - Prominent posterior heel; possible "rocker-bottomed" feet
3.  Edward's - Normal or may have underdeveloped big toe, club feet,
    "rocker-bottomed" feet, syndactyly
4.  Deletions - ???
1.  "Alien" - Normal, human-shaped arms and legs with clearly human, 
    well-developed musculature; neck/shoulders well-muscled; neck
    somewhat longer than normal.
2.  Patau's - May have general skeletal abnormalities (??)
3.  Edwards's - Infant musculature hypertonic (increased tone); may have 
    general skeletal abnormalities.
4.  Deletions - ???
General body/trunk/nipples/internal organs
1.  "Alien" - Possible female with genital slit, narrow hips and no 
    pubic hair; large chest with muscles well-developed (barrel-
    chested); no breasts; nipples not visible; abdomen bloated; trunk 
    may be somewhat shortened; flexed spine??; reportedly deformed or 
    nonrecognizable internal organs
2.  Patau's - Abnormal genitalia; extensive visceral defects including
    cardiac, gastrointestinal, and genito-urinary; general skeletal
3.  Edward's - Narrow hips; short sternum (breastbone); extensive 
    cardiac, renal, and intestinal defects; general skeletal
4.  Short arm deletion - Short stature
5.  Long arm deletion - Short stature; widely spaced nipples

Summary, conclusion:

The so-called Roswell "alien" most closely resembles a human suffering from a form of Patau's syndrome (chromosome 13 trisomy). In common with the "alien", a Patau victim typically has low-set, abnormally shaped ears, underdeveloped nose, absence of eyebrows, triangular forhead, partially fused brain hemispheres, polydactyl hands and feet, narrow finger tips, prominent heels and arched feet, abnormal genitalia and many visceral organ defects. There are also some similarities to Edward's syndrome victims (trisomy 18) who, in addition to having low- set, abnormal ears and many visceral defects, also have protruding posterior (occipital) heads with small jaws and mouths and narrow hips, similar to the "alien".

The main difference between a typical Patau or Edwards case and the "alien" are the abnormally large eyes, iris/pupil, palpebral fissure (eye-opening), and semi-prominent brow of the so-called alien. Patau/Edwards victims have multitudinous eye defects, frequently including abnormally small eyes (microphtalmia). A possible explanation of abnormally large eyes could be severe congenital glaucoma (increased intraocular pressure), a common byproduct of internal eye defects in newborns. This could cause the eye and orbit to greatly distend, though, admittedly, one would still not expect the eyes to be as large as shown in the "alien" autopsy photos. This person, in addition to being severely retarded, would also be quite blind.

Patau's and Edwards' cases rarely survive beyond infancy. Chromosome 18 deletion cases, however, can have relatively normal lifespans, and probably less-severely afflicted Patau's and Edwards' cases may survive to adolescence or adulthood. The "alien" body appears to be of an adolescent or preadolescent human female with surprisingly well- developed chest and limb musculature, more male in appearance than female. One can only conjecture as to why this would be so. A hormonal imbalance along with the other multitudinous organ defects seems like one possibility.

[Polydactylism is also endemic among various, isolated, inbred populations. I vaguely recall this being true in some areas of the Andes. Possibly the "barrel-chest" and musculature is of someone living at high-elevations under rather harsh conditions. Perhaps someone can come up with a reference on regions of polydactylism.

I personally believe the so-called Roswell alien autopsy to be a grisly, ghoulish hoax. The body appears real enough, but is of a genetically defective human, not an alien. This individual may have been a rare adolescent survivor of Patau's syndrome (probably on the order of 1:1,000,000 individuals). Such an individual with enlarged eyes would be rarer still. There can't be that many such cases world-wide: a few hundred at most.

It's doubtful that film producer Ray Santilli personally has the wherewithal to pull off such a hoax. He may be a conman, but I doubt that he's a grave robber, a frequenter of freak shows, or otherwise has the ability to find such a genetic freak, or several similar ones. It's possible he's unwittingly passing this hoax film along or maybe he's even being paid to promote it, but it's unlikely that he found the bodies, the old 16 mm film, and made the actual film footage. This seems to have been done by skilled pros with unlimited resources at their disposal.

So who's behind this and why? This seems like just one more government disinformation campaign to distract and discredit researchers of the Roswell case, similar to what happened in the 1980s "Majestic-12" hoax. Jacques Vallee in "Revelations" has described several other cases of the Air Force "dangling carrots" in front of film producers and UFO investigators promising filmed proof of alien contact, then snatching it away. For example, this happened to Robert Emenegger and Alan Sandler in 1973/74, Linda Moulton Howe in 1983, and again to Emenegger in 1985. Emenegger tried to involve Vallee and Dr. J. Alan Hynek in his productions, hoping they would lend credibility, but both smelled a government disinformation rat and wisely chose to keep their distance.

We should all be smelling rats, lots of them. It's probably no coincidence that Santilli is releasing the complete footage at the same time that the GAO report on Roswell is due out. It all seems like another well-orchestrated disinformation campaign. Thus, even if the GAO were to state that something highly unusual happened at Roswell and a cover-up was still in effect, the "Roswell alien" film would soon be exposed as a hoax and be used to ridicule and discredit all UFO/Roswell research.

Return to NewsGroup Index

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 16:58:51 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: "Archive" Film: Statements

Cross-postings from CompuServe:

(Note: Mr. Santilli has a Compuserve Address and is sharing message with members of the Encounters Forum, The MUFON Secion........ Illinois)

Subj: Statement from Mr. Sabin
Section: Mutual UFO Network
To: Theresa/SL/MUFON, 70571,1735
From: James Easton, 100626,2242
Date: July 1995 00:55:15

Hi Theresa,


Subj: Wax "Roswell" alien?
Section: Mutual UFO Network
To: Ray Santilli, 100612,2261
From: Theresa/SL/MUFON, 70571,1735
Date: July 1995 05:10:24

Hi Ray,


Thanks Ray! Lots of information in that message that can be passed around.


Ray's claims were as follows:

Subj: Wax "Roswell" alien?
Section: Mutual UFO Network
To: Theresa/SL/MUFON, 70571,1735
From: Ray Santilli, 100612,2261
Date: July 1995 00:11:17


Apart from a variety of medical experts worldwide including three pathologists in Italy, one in Paris, one in Japan and three in the UK. The film has been examined by three special effects companies, one in Italy, one in Japan and by the Jim Henson staff here in the U.K.

In addition to the above, the film was screened last week for the curator of mammals at the Natural History Museum Mr Richard Saban, also for the senior surgeons at University College Hospital London.

Although not all think the creature is an ET they don't know what it is however all think it is flesh and blood.



Obviously, certain aspects of any claims have to be verified as standard procedure and Mr Sabin (not Saban) was asked to confirm the accuracy of the above statement. A copy of the statement, no more, was forwarded to him and he has commented as follows:

It would appear that we are being misquoted by Mr Santilli regarding the preview of the film soon to be shown on Channel 4. The opinions included in your e.mail communication to me (dated 11 July 1995) are not the precise opinions as expressed by members of staff of this Museum.

To prevent further mis-representation, we will release a statement of our views, although before this can be done it must be officially approved by the Keeper of Zoology of The Natural History Museum. This will take a number of days, and will be in written (hard copy) form, although we will send a copy out to you through e.mail.

Yours sincerely,

Richard C. Sabin

Richard C. Sabin
Mammal Group, Department of Zoology,
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road, South Kensington,

Tel: 0171 938 9218 (Mammal Enquiries)
Direct lines: 0171 938 8913/8912

If you are circulating Ray's comments, perhaps it would be prudent to follow them with Mr Sabin's.


Return to NewsGroup Index

An Appeal to UFOlogy
Article by Paul Fuller

Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 06:20:20 +1000
Sender: "Gateway to alt.paranet.ufo"
From: John Stepkowski
Subject: Roswell Film - An Appeal to UFOlogy

>From: Paul Fuller <100611.1013@COMPUSERVE.COM>
>Subject: Roswell Film - An Appeal to UFOlogy
>Date: 2 Jul 1995 13:46:55 GMT
>Organization: the Crop Watcher (magazine about crop circles)
An Open Letter to UFOlogy
Paul Fuller, Co-Editor The New UFOlogist
2nd July 1995

I have decided to post this statement because of the important issues which are currently being discussed and because of the likely effect recent developments may have on the world-wide perception of UFO research. This is my own personal statement, not an official statement from "The New UFOlogist" or any other research group (I resigned from BUFORA in September 1993).

Contrary to claims I have seen posted on this newsgroup I would like to stress that I have been investigating UFO reports since 1980 and I _still_ believe that a small percentage of those reports represent what Allen-Hynek once described as "novel new phenomena". Over the past few months I have spent a great deal of time watching the latest developments over the alleged "Roswell" autopsy film and trying to find out the truth. In the past I have often been dismayed at the irresponsible actions of some UFO researchers, but for once I think we can hold up our heads and say that most UFO researchers have adopted a proper, sceptical attitude towards this issue. Please note that a whole series of internationally renowned UFOlogists have publicly dismissed the film as a fake. This list includes Kent Jeffrey, Stanton Friedman, Kevin Randle, Jenny Randles, Graham Birdsall, - even some of BUFORA's officers seem to have their doubts ! In all my years of UFO investigation and research I have never seen UFOlogists unite in this way before - and I have never seen them so angry either.

Whatever the truth of the matter the Roswell case does not deserve to be sullied by the promotion of this autopsy film. Over the past two months we have seen some pretty damning evidence emerge which must cause considerable doubt about the film's authenticity. Here are some of the things which should make us all highly suspicious of the film :-

1) According to the Winter 1995 edition of Colin Andrews' newsletter, "The prestiguous Royal Society in London agreed to assist with their high-tech. computer enhancement facility. Apparently results from computer enhancement were good and Ray Santilli said they only had a few more films to complete. He said that he had viewed all that had been developed and was confident of its authenticity." I have a letter from the Royal Society dated 12 June 1995 which states "Thank you for your letter of 8 June. The Royal Society does not have a 'high-tech computer enhancement facility' for films. Any claim that the Society agreed to assist in enhancing the film is without foundation."

2) At present we have not the slightest proof that an authentic 1947 film even exists, let alone that it shows what Mr Santilli claims that it shows. Mr Santilli, in a statement dated June 2nd, appears to believe that he has documentary proof that the film has been authenticated by Kodak as proven 1947 film stock. As Mr Santilli himself admits, even this would not be proof that the film really did show the autopsy of dead aliens at Roswell in 1947. On 28 June I spoke to Nick Fielding at the "Mail on Sunday" newspaper and he he told me that he had again spoken to Peter Milson at Kodak and again Kodak had denied this crucial claim. Why ?

I am curious that Mr Santilli should offer documentary proof of this claim to two people (John Ratcliffe and Michael Hesemann) and then deny them the opportunity of publishing the name of the Kodak employee who, apparently, has authenticated the age of the film. I challenge Mr Santilli to put this documentary proof up on the WWW immediately. I respectfully request John and Michael to tell us whether or not they have spoken to the Kodak employee named on the document and whether or not they have established that this Kodak employee is qualified to make the statement he is alleged to have made.

3) At present we have not the slightest proof that the camera-man who allegedly took this film exists. It is not good enough to claim that the cameraman has insisted on anonymity and that Mr Santilli has seen documentary confirmation of his alleged background. Again I challenge Mr Santilli to put on the WWW specific information about the camera-man which can be verified by independent researchers. Now that the name of this alleged camera-man has been widely published I am surprised to see that Mr Santilli has not denied the name in order to protect the camera-man. This seems a very strange way to treat someone who - allegedly - is very much in fear of retribution by the US authorities for stealing their film. Since this camera- man is the most-important-person in the world with regard to this film I would have thought that Mr Santilli would have immediately denied the name of this person in a statement.

4) According to some messages posted in this newsgroup Dr Chris Milroy has provided "the official Home Office pathology report". This is not true. I have a letter dated 13 June 1995 from Rob Smith, Senior Information Officer at the Home Office at 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9AT. In this letter Smith states "Your letter of 10 June refers to a 'senior Home Office pathologist'. This is media shorthand for pathologists who are accredited by the Home Office. They are not employees of the Home Office and we therefor do not speak for them." I have learnt that Dr Milroy has been paid money to produce this report and has honourably paid this money to a local charity.

I find it interesting that in his response to a question put to him during a conference on the MUFON Encounters Forum on June 24 Mr Santilli speaks about bringing in five medical experts from London, Paris and Rome who "confirmed that the creatures are real and possibly not human in addition". This is a quite remarkable statement given the available evidence. Nowhere in Dr Chris Milroy's report does he describe the entity on the film as a "creature". Neither does he suggest that the entity is not human. I challenge Mr Santilli to post the names and addresses of the other four "medical experts" cited in this conference and the contents of their autopsy reports so that researchers can verify what he is claiming on their behalf. Again in my conversation with Nick Fielding of the "Mail on Sunday" he reported that Dr Milroy was not suggesting that the entities seen on his portion of the film were extra-terrestrial, something George Wingfield confirmed in an earlier post. I have written to the Chancellor of Sheffield University (my old university) to verify why Dr Milroy has allowed such an unfortunately worded statement to be posted on the net and whether or not he intends to clarify his statement.

5) Numerous claims about the emergence of the film have now been made in various newsgroups on the internet by those closely involved in the promotion of this film. Many of these claims can be shown to contradict eachother. Others - such as the claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury had viewed the film in private - have been denied (see "Fortean Times" issue 81 page 43). One of the most suspicious claims is that in 1947 the US government had in its possession the most important film shot in the history of the human race and that they allowed over an hour of this film to be stolen. According to Mr Santilli they then failed to recover this priceless film from someone who was intimitely involved in recording this alleged event and who hid the film under his bed for many decades. Don't you think that this would be the very _first place_ the US military authorities would have come searching under such circumstances ? Can we really believe this astonishing claim ?

6) At best Mr Santilli has had possession of this film for six months during which time he has appeared to be remarkably reluctant to allow third parties the opportunity to authenticate the film or the camera-man's story. In my opinion Mr Santilli's comments about UFO researchers (posted on June 3) and the promotion of the photograph showing alleged hieroglyphics on the wreckage is a gross insult to UFOlogists world-wide. It should be noted that despite his very low opinion of UFOlogists Mr Santilli met with George Wingfield at his office the day after he posted this message and he has since met (for at least the third time) with Colin Andrews. Just what is going on here?


I appeal to UFOlogists world-wide. Keep your feet on the ground. Don't make positive statements about this film which are unsupported by the evidence. There are many suspicious features about this film and there are many unanswered questions which Mr Santilli has to address if he wishes the public at large to accept the authenticity of the material in his possession. Remember to exercise caution; premature statements of support for this film's authenticity would provide ammunition for those who would use such statements to discredit UFOlogy for decades to come. In particular I appeal to Colin Andrews and George Wingfield to stop and think again. Please, step back and reconsider your positions very carefully.

Paul Fuller

Return to NewsGroup Index

Carl Armstrong - Statement of Roswell as Witness

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 23:19:57 0000
From: Luc Desaulniers
Organization: Nemesis
Subject: Roswell

Tonight, I was watching a video regarding UFO (French translation - Produce by ALPA International - Copywright Grann Production LTD, Finland) where a certain Carl Armstrong was stating (being a witness to the Roswell incident - and participant; he was a CIA agent) that the EBE had _4_ palmed fingers. Well, that shures is contrary to Mr Santilli'film etc. The more I read, the more I am certain this all thing (not Roswell, the film) is a very good hoax.

Return to NewsGroup Index

Roswell 'Aliens' - Drowned Humans!

Hans Kampen is a UFO Researcher I have been corresponding with on Compuserve for the best several months. He periodically checks in with us or visits our Web Site. Recently he just sent this possibly to explain the human-type aliens we see in the film. ....... Illinois

From: Hans v. Kampen, (Germany)
To: Joshua Shapiro,
Date: 8/12/95
Subject: Roswell 'aliens' drowned humans!

Very thoroughly investigating the few pictures available from the 'Roswell: The Footage' video about the link between mysterious US Army (not airforce) material and the so-called '1947-Roswell Incident' lead to the following, strong indices:

1. It is apparent that the bodies are deformed, especially the heads and belly.

2. It is apparent that the bodies show wounds on several places.

3. It is apparent that the corpses aren't too 'fresh'.


Have you ever seen the corpse of a drowned person after many days in the water? I have seen it recently and was stunned by its appearance! THERE WAS THE ROSWELL ALIEN!!! The corpse was swollen, as was the *skull* ... like the photo of the 'alien' from aside. Swollen almost beyond recognition...!

This very fact, the damages on the 'Roswell' corpses and the rather hurried autopsies lead me to believe there is a comparison, between what I saw with my own eyes and what is presented us as being 'aliens?' (mind the ?). It becomes more and more likely, that we deal with the Army or Navy autopsies of (not unlikely: Japanese) *drowned sailors*, which have been *shot* at. I see no connection to the US Army Airforce or the just instigated USAF and 'Roswell' at all for the moment.

I would like to urge you all to investigate and pursue this viewpoint and forget for a moment about a true 'Roswell connection'. I believe we are looking into the wrong direction by looking upward, we have to look downward - in or under the waves of the sea.

Now as to complete a *working hypothesis*:

The 'Roswell footage' shows drowned (japanese) sailors, of whom the corpses were conserved to be used for US weapon experiments. From at least one image (the one with legwounds) it becomes cristal clear, that the corpse was more than once shot at. The autopsies served the Army to check the impact of bullets on human bodies. The autopsies show a minimal interest in the corpses as being 'alien' - it would be utterly unwise to dissect 'aliens' the unscientifical way it is shown in the footage. This would waste immense important scientific knowledge about the anatomy and functions of non-human aliens. I can't think of any reason to waste such material...

It will be extremely difficult to convincingly prove the footage stems from weapon experiments. A recent raw over secret tests on corpses by safety belt manufacturers at a state owned test facility in Germany, which leaked by accident to the press, has clearly shown that this 'usual procedure' is at the same time judged to be *rather immoral*. Nevertheless is proved to be true.

Hope this doesn't disappoint any of you - remember: let us keep an open eyes, but be rational, and try Occam's razor first.

One immense important point remains for those in doubt: either all so-called eyewitnesses of Roswell debris and aliens have lied over time, or the footage isn't what it pretends to be: the 'aliens' don't look like the descriptions of the 'eyewitnesses'! Check your sources.


The footage is no fake, but it really tells a different story than the Roswell myth implies.

Hans v. Kampen

Return to NewsGroup Index

Roswell FAQ & Concerns

By Kevin O'Crean, England

From: (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: WE THE JURY [Re:Roswell FAQ and concerns]
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 19:15:31 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE

Dear Sir,

You have asked some excellent questions and although most of these are covered in existing posts I will throw my 2 cents worth in. May I suggest you read all the Roswell Posts you can.

>On 3 Aug 1995 13:10:15 -0400, you wrote:

> - If there are (at least) two bodies shown in the film(s), is it safe
> to discard the radiation victim and disease inflicted girl theories?
> What are the chances of finding two victims of disease or radiation
> exposure that look exactly the same?  If there are (at least) two
> bodies in the film, _do_ they look identical?
It is difficult to stay objective during UFO research, but it is essential that one does so. It is so difficult when suddenly presented with the Holy Grail to not 'want' it to be the real thing as opposed to *proving* it to be the real thing.

ALL of us want the footage to be real, without exception. We all want the Scientific community to suddenly rally to our side and say the figures are 'not of this Earth'. We want Kodak to verify the *actual* film. We want our dreams to come true.

But, we must treat it very much like being on a jury. A jury does not deal with speculation, it deals with facts, so let us try and see how we proceed.

Is the body...

1. An Alien?
2. A Human being albeit deformed?
3. A funeral parlour hoax/crash dummy/film company

Remember, we are the *jury* NOT the attorneys.

1. Is there any specialist evidence, hard fact, signed sealed and delivered that it is an alien?

The answer (To date) is NO (remember as evidence changes we go through all this again and again)

Therefore at this moment in time it is either a deformed human being item 2 or a hoax item 3. Notice we do not try to complicate things by combining possibilities.

2. Has anyone medically qualified stated that a real autopsy had taken place? YES (Dr Milroy of Sheffield)

Did he imply it was unhuman NO (He stated that seemed to be a pubescent girl)

Did he describe surgical procedures and did these appear to be carried normally and concurrently YES (He stated that the autopsy was in his opinion being carried out by a surgeon as opposed to a pathologist)

So, we need not go any further at the moment because what we know is this...

1. Nobody has stood up and said they think the body is an alien (only those who WANT it to be) No Medical expert that is.

2. It is a real autopsy on a real body, with incisions, blood and expression of internal tissue. Opinion of Milroy


Remember, you are the JURY. You cannot ignore facts and use your prejudice to colour your wish for an outcome.

> - From what I understand the examiners are wearing radiation suits, at
> any point during the film does anyone show their face?  Is Truman in
> the film?
As far as I can gather no recognisable facial features were seen, although it is reported that the hands of one of the examiners looking at the hands of the subject appeared to be female.

There is no evidence available to suggest Truman was on the Film and Mr Santilli seems to have changed his mind several times on this.

> - Does the film contain footage of the debris field, or is it limited
> to the autopsies?
This writer has no idea (does anyone else?)

> - Wouldn't bodies that were baking in the desert for anywhere from two
> days to a week be deprived of any bodily fluids, or at least dehydrated
> to the point where blood (or whatever liquid it may be) does not ooze
> from the nasal cavities as does the being (TToTT) shown in the stills?
More important than that, if the bodies were exposed without helmets, the eyes would not be present due to birds, who will even enter a crashed aircraft if they can (I know I have seen it!).

There is no proof or indication of how the bodies were found in this respect. However, Dr Milroy suggests that there was an unusual amount of blood flow during incision. We cannot speculate too much here except that we can make an educated guess that the subject had not been dead very long before the autopsy. It has a similar physiology to humans and therefore a similar circulation system and the common denominator is gravity. Blood in a dead person always sinks to the lowest level in the body.

> - Has Dean Kane or any other (alleged) witness to autopsy photos of
> this kind viewed the film and made comment?  Has Mack Brazel's son or
> any other public eyewitness to the crash seen the film?  What are their
> comments?
Not known...(anyone else?)
> - Why does the autopsy proceeding seem so lackadaisical?  Why are there
> no pictures being taken?  Why are there no notes being logged?  Why is
> there only one cameraman?
See the post THE ROSWELL GIRL for a full explanation of that scenario, if you haven't seen it it will be reposted.
> - How come the bodies do not resemble the beings viewed by (supposed)
> Roswell eyewitnesses?  Why do the beings not resemble any other
> (alien) being/race in UFO lore?
Here again we have to be careful. What cast iron evidence has been presented to even suggest (let alone prove) that the autopsy films have *any* connection with Roswell? None.

We only have Mr Santilli's word for that and the 'court' has found him guilty of 'perjury' on a number of occasions on other matters.

Return to NewsGroup Index

Designed for the exclusive use of VJ Enterprises © 1997