• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Alien Autopsy Film (1995; Santilli & Melaris)

Re. the Santilli film and the AntDec cinematic semi-fiction it is true that the slightly sleazy nature of the affair, whilst admitted, is neatly glossed over with the duo's cheeky chappie charm.
 
Andy X said:
Re. the Santilli film and the AntDec cinematic semi-fiction it is true that the slightly sleazy nature of the affair, whilst admitted, is neatly glossed over with the duo's cheeky chappie charm.
Click to expand...

Of course it is... The whole caper was and is inherently 'Barnmesque' and in that sense inescapably sleazy in a funny/cheesy sort of way; the team involved were all relatively young at the time and in most ways that mater it was a good publicity rag. But there's sleaze and there's sleaze. ...If Ray wasn't making films he'd be flogging £50 Rolexes at the local flea market; you kind of know where you are with him I think. He's just a geezer.

Shell? What sort of animal takes advantage of a vulnerable damaged girl 37 years his junior? - Even if he hadn't actually killed her; who goes there? That's beyond sleaze, beneath any depths.
 
Sure; he was an opportunist of a fairly low-rent kind. I was barely aware of the real-life business with Bob Shell and the girl. Sounds distinctly nasty.
 
...It's all very sad.

http://www.zen71560.zen.co.uk/_photoweek/2007/10/who-was-marion-franklin.html

Maybe Ray and/or members of his team, now that they're mature, experienced people, would be better to explore the mistake they made in hiring Shell? Perhaps pay some sort of tribute to Marion Franklin? Possibly even, as a theme, examine how what starts off as a jape can have such tragic echoes? - Sort of lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas kind of thing?
 
Old Master Q said:
...It's all very sad.

http://www.zen71560.zen.co.uk/_photoweek/2007/10/who-was-marion-franklin.html

Maybe Ray and/or members of his team, now that they're mature, experienced people, would be better to explore the mistake they made in hiring Shell? Perhaps pay some sort of tribute to Marion Franklin? Possibly even, as a theme, examine how what starts off as a jape can have such tragic echoes? - Sort of lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas kind of thing?
Click to expand...
I know a chap called Andreas Yesimi, part business owner at Constantia Restaurant in East Runton, a Greek restaurant run by the whole family including his Mum .. Andreas, at heart, is an artist creative type ... he started a modelling agency and would regularly meet young ladies at a hotel I worked at (only ever in the bar, never in a hotel room type thing) .. my manager at the time was suspicious of his motives and was thinking 'sleazy old man' thoughts about him ... but nope, he was happily married, never flirted with any of these young ladies and was sincerely only interested in glamour photography .. his portfolio never went anywhere near semi dressed, he was and still is a respectable married family man and is now our town councillor doing excellent work .. the point I'm trying to make is that perhaps Shell is innocent and perhaps people's preconceived ideas (old man + young girl + photographs) have condemned Shell ?.
 
Swifty said:
I know a chap called Andreas Yesimi, part business owner at Constantia Restaurant in East Runton, a Greek restaurant run by the whole family including his Mum .. Andreas, at heart, is an artist creative type ... he started a modelling agency and would regularly meet young ladies at a hotel I worked at (only ever in the bar, never in a hotel room type thing) .. my manager at the time was suspicious of his motives and was thinking 'sleazy old man' thoughts about him ... but nope, he was happily married, never flirted with any of these young ladies and was sincerely only interested in glamour photography .. his portfolio never went anywhere near semi dressed, he was and still is a respectable married family man and is now our town councillor doing excellent work .. the point I'm trying to make is that perhaps Shell is innocent and perhaps people's preconceived ideas (old man + young girl + photographs) have condemned Shell ?.
Click to expand...


Back in the mid-90s, when I corresponded and even spoke once or twice on the phone to Shell, he gave the impression of being a very 'settled' married man with an interest in photo technology and landscape work. I actually felt 'bad' at having 'torn down' his analysis of the AA footage so harshly and so publicly; but he seemed unphased by this. Took it on the chin, and was most gracious. - He can come across as quite plausible.

But I think Shells' own account, presented in rather lame defence of his actions - and even the superficial evidence that we can access easily - rather dispels all that.

What sane mature man in his sixth decade 'gets involved' with 19-year old drug addicts in the first place? Let alone those who are so dysfunctional that they think sex is a commodity? What 'innocence' is there in equipping a studio with an electric winch for the express purpose of suspending young, trussed-up semi-naked women from it?

Read into the history of the 'relationship' between him and his victim. ...She was a vulnerable and unwell young girl who's addiction he sustained for his own purposes. Nominally she was his 'studio manager', but really what legitimacy could there have been in that? A 'job' she was singularly untrained and unqualified for; apart from her malleability.

His 'defence'? A fanciful tale of mis-set internal clocks on cameras, missing files and general quasi-technical bullshit culminating in him accusing the police of tampering with the camera and their technical expert - the head of a forensic photo lab - of incompetence.

This being the same man who was so easily 'taken down' in a technical analysis he had made, by a random stranger on an internet forum... When I challenged him he didn't really even understand the differences between PAL and NTSC! Basic stuff! Doesn't matter how many book or articles he had published; clearly he was quite capable of being wrong. Shell (apparently) isn't even really a qualified photographic technician - Yet he goes head-to-head with a man (Chuck Pruitt) trained and qualified specifically in forensic photo analysis.

Nothing about Shell or his defence 'stands up'. And overall it taints the AA footage forever.

The project was really Santilli's baby as far as I can see... The timing of his admission and the ant and Dec film was well considered; it was obvious Shell was going down. And that should have been IT! Ray saw clearly that the game was a bogie.

Spyros Melaris? OK, he was there, as were others - most of whom seem to have carried on working where he 'peaked' many years ago...

On one level it's understandable; people need to eat, and if entertainment is your business well you need to get up on the stage and if you're hungry you will 'reach' into corners. What I question is if this - given all the tragic circumstances - is really the right part of the old stack to be raking over?

And in any case I don't really buy his claims to have been the 'main man' involved in creating the hoax anyway


Further reading on Shell if you can stomach it.

http://www.roanoke.com/webmin/news/the-final-shoot/article_81368186-08be-5735-afd4-c1059f20aa86.html
 
Last edited:
This was one of the reasons I left BUFORA as an officer. I was never happy with them promoting this footage at their conference in Sheffield when the affair was rumbling. It always had a worrying pedigree and I felt the group was at risk of being used for promotion. At the time I was working as story consultant on the ITV series Strange But True? and we were given the chance to view and consider something about that footage. But my suspicions from a UFO perspective and the concerns from a technical point of view of our experienced video crew assured we decided to opt out and never considered doing anything about the case during our four years.
 
Richard Dolan breaks down his interview with Kit Green, senior CIA officer, about his experiences with the Santilli film. His exposure to the footage goes back to the late 80s, which surprised me.
 
As a reminder, Santilli admitted to Eamonn Holmes in 2006 that the '95 film was a fake as the original had degraded beyond use, so he (and or Spyros Melaris - discuss) recreated it and that the four or five usable original frames had been spliced into it, but he wasn't sure which they were thus making analysis impossible.

Now he's saying that he can identify an original frame, after all. It has no provenance beyond Santilli's say-so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh boy.... now this is a tale I know only too well and then some.

When the film was first released, Ray joined the Compuserve UFO forum, ostensibly seeking more information about the Roswell case.

Another forum member was Bob Shell, who had experience using the type of film equipment claimed to have been used by, 'the cameraman', and offered to help analyse any original frames.

Although protesting the frames were too valuable and could be damaged by testing, Ray eventually produced five of them, which showed a doorway and I think... stairs.

They could obviously have come from anywhere!

There remains much unexplained about the entire story.

For a start, I am one of the few people on earth who have a copy of all the footage.

Bizarrely, Ray's initial marketing strategy was to set up a web site and sell what he termed, 'the raw footage' from there.

That video contained the contents of each seperate reel - 16 or so, if I remember.

Ray abandoned this (web site sales were a new venture in those Compuserve days!), lamenting he had only sold around 200 videos.

Everything else thereafter, only featured portions of the film.

The complete footage features an entire autopsy, segments of which are on each reel, from start to finish and each reel has a description, allegedly taken from the film canister (will clarify in more detail, later)

If I recall, just over 20 minutes of film.

This is no laughable attempt, as seen in recreations by SFX artists, to show how easily it could be done.

it's stunningly realistic and therein lies a perplexing issue.

I briefly discussed the footage with Spyros a few years back and he explained it was basically a latex body filled with animal offal and the, 'surgeons' were merely acquaintances.

Really?

So, why are the autopsy procedures seemingly in the correct sequence and the body displays nothing like, 'anatomy', which has just been, 'chucked together'.

Look at the, 'brain removal' procedure, for example.

I had an agreement with Spyros that I might interview him in full one day and it's on my mind maybe now is a perfect opportunity - we keep in touch.

Meanwhile, I have found an online copy of the entire film!

All of this is in one take, so everything within the, 'body' has to be in place beforehand, no margin for errors and has to be convincing in its entirety.

Planning and execution has to be meticulous.

So.... it's not that bad an effort from a bunch of amateurs...

In fact, some might say, if you didn't know better...

I suspect hardly anyone on the forum has seen this, in full, previously and might be somewhat taken aback.

I have always mused that it's way too damn good...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
stu neville said:
As a reminder, Santilli admitted to Eamonn Holmes in 2006 that the '95 film was a fake as the original had degraded beyond use, so he (and or Spyros Melaris - discuss) recreated it and that the four or five usable original frames had been spliced into it, but he wasn't sure which they were thus making analysis impossible.
Click to expand...
That's not reliable and some patently erroneous.

There were never any frames spliced into the film - that was unnecessary as it was only ever a video release.

Ray's story has changed and his original, as related in some detail on the Compuserve forum, is quite different.

More on this later.
 
Analogue Boy said:
Prop clock.
Click to expand...
Time warp?
Random bits of lab equipment, Bunsen burner (looks like it isn't connected), retort stand , next to an empty conical flask, because they look 'scientific', maybe also a rack of test tubes. Probably didn't have the budget for flasks of bubbling liquid.
 
Timble2 said:
Time warp?
Random bits of lab equipment, Bunsen burner (looks like it isn't connected), retort stand , next to an empty conical flask, because they look 'scientific', maybe also a rack of test tubes. Probably didn't have the budget for flasks of bubbling liquid.
Click to expand...
It isn't a proper lab unless it has dry ice bubbling away.
 
stu neville said:
Preaching to the choir there, mate. It's fake as fake can be.
Click to expand...
Not according to...

There were so many, 'expert' opinions otherwise.

One in particular, I seemingly highlighted!

"A strange dilemma appears to face Dr Thomas Jansen of the prestigious Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich. Jansen has declared the body in the autopsy footage to be a textbook case of progeria, an exceedingly rare "premature ageing" disorder. One of the world's foremost experts on the illness, Jansen has so convinced his peers of the "one hundred percent watertight" diagnosis, that it was published in the Munich Weekly Medical Journal.

However, Jansen offers no explanation for the apparent fractured leg, severe flesh wounds, partially-severed hand, dark eye-covers, or the necessity for protective clothing.

Worse yet, it's evident that the internal organs are not human, the braini is not human, the reflected skin reveals no subcutaneous fat layer and the creature has no veins, arteries, mamilla, or a navel.

The dilemma now facing Dr Jansen is whether to admit to the medical world that he was fooled by a latex dummy, or has written the world's first medical paper on an extraterrestrial corpse".
 
Comfortably Numb said:
That video contained the contents of each seperate reel - 16 or so, if I remember.


The complete footage features an entire autopsy, segments of which are on each reel, from start to finish and each reel has a description, allegedly taken from the film canister (will clarify in more detail, later)

If I recall, just over 20 minutes of film.


Meanwhile, I have found an online copy of the entire film!

All of this is in one take, so everything within the, 'body' has to be in place beforehand, no margin for errors and has to be convincing in its entirety.

Planning and execution has to be meticulous.
Click to expand...
snipped to show just the bits I want to comment on.

it’s multiple reels so by definition it is not one take.

In fact when you watch it there are 92 breaks in the filming, periods when the camera is switched off or frames have been removed. 92 occasions when things could have been added, reset, removed. So it could have been shot in sections all of which have then been edited together, or it could have been shot and then filming paused whilst they got the next bit ready and then filming recommenced. It is not one single shot. With 92 breaks there are 93 shots comprising this footage and between each shot anything could have happened.
 
Timble2 said:
Random bits of lab equipment, Bunsen burner (looks like it isn't connected), retort stand , next to an empty conical flask, because they look 'scientific', maybe also a rack of test tubes.
Click to expand...
You are touching on what was a perplexing aspect... when analysed in detail, over the ensuing months, an incredible amount of subtle, 'prop details' emerged.

For instance, next to the telephone, there appears to be a phone number 'scribbled' on the wall!
 
gordonrutter said:
So what specifically do you mean by the phrase “All of this is in one take”?
Click to expand...
Going by the clock, as highlighted in my aforenoted upload... our, 'autopsy' begins at 10:05 and ends at 11:45.

As a SFX, it would therefore have been a one-off filming?

When you think about this... it had to be? You couldn't go back and start again - not as if there were, 'backup dummies, with everything already inserted and in its, 'proper place'!

Weird and I have duly asked Spyros for some much needed insight.

An amateurish prank?

To this day, I'm not aware of anyone ever identifying a single flaw in either the props, or extraordinarily, the footage itself.

The Roswell connection was, however, the story's fatal flaw fron day one and don't forget the accompanying, 'debris' footage, with prerequisite, ''i-beams and their, hieroglyphics'!

I just think the entire story and purported evidence is amazingly complex and replete with a plethora of herrings exhibiting almost crimson.

Sorry, lost the plot there and started talking about Rendlesham again...
 
Didn't Santilli admit it was a 'reconstruction' of the autopsy as the original film had degraded. Only about 5 frames from the 'original' film were good enough to use & inserted 'somewhere' in the reconstruction.

From Wiki:

According to Santilli, a set was constructed in the living room of an empty flat in Rochester Square, Camden Town, London. John Humphreys, an artist and sculptor, was employed to construct two dummy alien bodies over a period of three weeks, using casts containing sheep brains set in raspberry jam, chicken entrails and knuckle joints obtained from S.C. Crosby Wholesale Butchers Smithfield meat market, London. Humphreys also played the role of the chief examiner, in order to allow him to control the effects being filmed. There were two separate attempts at making the footage. After filming, the team disposed of the "bodies" by cutting them into small pieces and placing them in rubbish bins across London.[
Click to expand...
 
Comfortably Numb said:
Not according to...

There were so many, 'expert' opinions otherwise.

One in particular, I seemingly highlighted..
Click to expand...
With respect I spent months intensively researching this for last year's anniversary piece, including speaking with Spyros Melaris at length (Santilli declined), and they absolutely strove for authenticity with the props as had the setting not seemed perfect there was no way anyone would buy the dummy. Philip Mantle has devoted two plus decades to this and also solidly concludes the entire thing is fake. Santilli's admission to which both Hunck above and I alluded earlier is covered in the FT piece, the text of which I'll upload to my WordPress later on and link over.
 
hunck said:
Didn't Santilli admit it was a 'reconstruction' of the autopsy as the original film had degraded. Only about 5 frames from the 'original' film were good enough to use & inserted 'somewhere' in the reconstruction.
Click to expand...
No.

And maybe yes!

Depends on which version of the story you choose!

The upshot is that from a Fortean point of view, it was truly an, 'anomalous phenomena', replete with all the tangents one might expect.

For example, how the footage was allegedly required.

The following should help enormously in explaining that original context.

It's something I seemingly put together in 1997, with the incredible psychic foresight that one day it might actually be useful!

This is a factual snapshot of circumstances at that time.

It perhaps evidences my expression that the case study is actually a wee bit more involved.

Brilliant fun though and one thing I learned - just in general and something kept in mind ever since - was that for every bonafide expert's opinion, there is another's which claims exactly the opposite!

Tell you what though amigo, having just read this document again for the first time in, I suppose almost 25 years, I might be understating the myriad of complexity a tad!

You remind that I was thinking about a top 10 UFO related song list.

Number one would be Thin Lizzy and...

'Don't Believe a Word'...

www.forteanmedia.com/AA_Q&A.pdf
 
OK - here's the text of my article from FT 395, July last year: Effects, Lies and Videotape . It is a hugely complex topic, but this is as good a distillation as I could manage in 3000 words (it could have run to twice the length easily.) This represents what is acknowledged as factual by the majority of not only authorities on the case - and both David Clark and Philip Mantle "agree" with the article - but one of the main perpetrators in Melaris. All of the narrative attributed to Santilli is referenced.
 
Comfortably Numb said:
...our, 'autopsy' begins at 10:05 and ends at 11:45.
Click to expand...

This means that the “alien autopsy” - possibly the culmination of the most significant event in human history, the proof that ”we are not alone in the universe” - was conducted in exactly the same time as a typical post mortem on an OAP who dies in the UK, but for whom their GP is reluctant to issue a certificate until it’s made clear which of their medical conditions was primarily responsible for carrying them off, i.e. about 1½ - 2 hours.

The only comparably important autopsy that l can think of was that of President Kennedy. He was shot in the head, in public, on live telly and in front of hundreds of witnesses, so - IMHO - fairly cut and dried. His autopsy took 4½ hours, three principal medical personnel and twenty other medical staff (plus numerous other police/military/FBI/Secret Service).

Hmmm...

maximus otter
 
stu neville said:
Philip Mantle has devoted two plus decades to this and also solidly concludes the entire thing is fake. Santilli's admission to which both Hunck above and I alluded earlier is covered in the FT piece, the text of which I'll upload to my WordPress later on and link over.
Click to expand...
Please do!!!

Philip was involved early and we discussed the case.

As you are presumaby aware, Santilli arranged for the alleged cameraman to phone Philip and they spoke for around 15 minutes.

Philip concluded it was 'interesting', yet could have been anyone impersonating same.

Crazy and then of course we have the brief, 'tent footage', supposed film canister label images Ray released, the 'debris' and our stunningly insightful, 'control panels'.

I have found some related images which once resided on my old website.

frames_resize_55.jpg


tent_resize_83.jpg


cman$_resize_26.jpg


reel_31_resize_38.jpg


reel_52_resize_71.jpg


debris_2_resize_98.jpg


debris_3_resize_8.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top