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.
It appears so, plus he has a website proclaiming his innocence-A few years later he was banged up for killing a young girl in a bizarre fetish-photography scenario... He's probably still in jail AFAIK.
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 ?....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?
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 ?.
That's not reliable and some patently erroneous.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.
Preaching to the choir there, mate. It's fake as fake can be.That's not reliable and some patently erroneous.
Time warp?Prop clock.
It isn't a proper lab unless it has dry ice bubbling away.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.
Not according to...Preaching to the choir there, mate. It's fake as fake can be.
All the presumed props were thoroughly debated and eventually checked out - right to the smallest detail!Prop clock.
snipped to show just the bits I want to comment on.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.
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.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.
Such an intriguing aspect and one I apparently observed!it’s multiple reels so by definition it is not one take.
So what specifically do you mean by the phrase “All of this is in one take”?Such an intriguing aspect and one I apparently observed!
Uploaded to retain formatting:
www.forteanmedia.com/Reels.pdf
Going by the clock, as highlighted in my aforenoted upload... our, 'autopsy' begins at 10:05 and ends at 11:45.So what specifically do you mean by the phrase “All of this is in one take”?
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.[
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.Not according to...
There were so many, 'expert' opinions otherwise.
One in particular, I seemingly highlighted..
No.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.
...our, 'autopsy' begins at 10:05 and ends at 11:45.
Please do!!!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.
Already did - it's at the bottom of the previous page.Please do!!!