Saturday, May 26, 2012

Alien Autopsy and Philip Mantle

Philip Mantle, Roswell Alien Autopsy published by RoswellBooks.com, Edinburg, Texas, 293 pages with an index.
 
 

Philip Mantle, a British UFO researcher has been involved with the alien autopsy almost from the moment that it was announced to the world that the film existed. He has met with all the primaries in the case, including those who hold the film, those who have examined it, and those of us who have researched it and UFOs for many years. If someone was going to write the definitive book about the alien autopsy, it would be Philip Mantle.

In great detail, Mantle outlines the whole story of the alien autopsy from the first public mention of any sort of film footage by Reg Presley of the Troggs (yeah, the Wild Thing group), to the worldwide interest in it. He explains how he entered into the investigation nearly two decades ago and what he has learned along the way.

For those interested in all details of how the film was found, or maybe I should say, for those interested in the various versions of how the film was found and what was on it, this is the book. In fact, that is what is good about this book. It provides the information in a chronological form but with all the variations on what was said and by whom as more was learned about it.

Mantle presents the material in a fairly neutral form and I did find that somewhat disconcerting. I would have liked to see more commentary from him about the various aspects of the case. Don’t get me wrong, he offers opinions, but most of them are from those who have had some involvement in the alien autopsy case whether from the point of their creation of it to those who were on the fringes of the research about it.

In the end, I had a fairly clear idea of what Mantle thought, though some of that comes from the words of others. For example, the last chapter is the words of Mark Center who has a negative opinion of the film. And information just before that are my thoughts based on the admittedly unscientific poll I ran here about the reality of the film and the surprise, at least for me, that so many thought there was something of value in a study of the film.

And just before all that is a long interview with Spyros Melaris who said that he was deeply involved in the production of the autopsy film, which, if true, means the whole thing is a hoax. Refuting him, somewhat, is a chapter dealing with Ed Gehrman, an American who claims, among other things, that he has found the real crash site based on information supplied by the cameraman... or rather information supplied by the cameraman through Ray Santilli. Gehrman asks, "If there was no cameraman, how could he describe a real site in New Mexico?"

But that doesn’t do much to validate the alien autopsy and in the end, it is clear that all aspects of it have been explained. The evidence presented, including interviews and discussions with those who have the inside knowledge of the case should convince nearly everyone about the truth behind the alien autopsy.

Mantle’s book provides all the information that is needed to understand the autopsy from the very beginning. He leaves a little wiggle room at the end, though it is fairly clear what the conclusion of the reader should be. This is the one book to own if you have an interest in the alien autopsy, if you are interested in this one aspect of the Roswell UFO crash case, or you just would like a glimpse into the British world of music and television production.

17 comments:

cda said...

With Aztec likely to replace Roswell (temporarily at least) as the top UFO crash case, may we now expect an autopsy film of the bodies recovered at Aztec?

Ray Palm (Ray X) said...

I was reading "The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell" (hardcover edition) and there's mention of some sort of pumice or pumice-like material you handled that was possibly connected to the event. I did some Googling but didn't find any more info on it. I was hoping you could provide more details about that material.

Steve Sawyer said...

I guess the essential bottom-line here is that the "Alien Autopsy" film was a hoax created by Ray Santilli and others, such as Spyros M., according to his belated statements on the case, and there's never been any real credibility to this case or film, ever.

It was a fraud done for disinformational purposes and to reap the financial benefits from those TV networks, like Fox in the U.S., who were more than willing to go along with it, and falsely publicize this hoax for the ratings and advertising money. Nothing more and nothing less. I guess you could also say it was a kind of "gullibility test."

While Santilli pulled an initially "successful" con, got his money (which was well over a million dollars in TV licensing rights worldwide), and then tried to obscure the facts of the fraud as they emerged over time by repeatedly lying about the film's origins and "provenance" in order to continue selling DVD's of the "mockumentary" to credulous suckers for as long as possible, anyone who objectively looked into the matter soon found it was utterly bogus hype.

But any serious UFO investigator with sense and simple, basic intellectual acumen knew from the beginning it was a hoax, although a fairly elaborate one.

I remember shortly after this film came out discussing it with Jacques Vallee and his former mentor, Fred Beckman. Beckman knew it was fraud, but seemed to think the body shown was a human "mutant" with a degenerative genetic disorder -- he seemed to disagree when I told him I thought it was simply a silicone and animal organ combo mockup, which is what it actually turned out to be when the details of the fraud did emerge.

I was rather surprised at the time to find some UFO researchers thought it might be a genuine "alien" body. Just goes to show how far the subjective "will to believe," or confirmation bias can go in some cases.

paul thompson said...

You're right Steve. It is a total hoax, a fraud. I remember reading that at one point Santilli agreed to let Kodak analyze the film, for dating and other authenticating purposes. Guess what? It never happened. This case is a classic example of the fact the the UFO world has in it all too many fraudsters and hucksters and it is one reason I am very skeptcial about all signiciant UFO claims.

paul thompson said...

You're right Steve. It is a total hoax, a fraud. I remember reading that at one point Santilli agreed to let Kodak analyze the film, for dating and other authenticating purposes. Guess what? It never happened. This case is a classic example of the fact the the UFO world has in it all too many fraudsters and hucksters and it is one reason I am very skeptcial about all signiciant UFO claims.

David Rudiak said...

Paul Thompson wrote:
This case is a classic example of the fact the the UFO world has in it all too many fraudsters and hucksters and it is one reason I am very skeptcial about all signiciant UFO claims.

Sorry Paul, couldn't let this pass. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ALL fields have their hoaxers and scumbugs: Lawyers, doctors, bankers, real estate agents, politicians, priests, teachers, you name it. As long as human beings are involved, there is going to be some level of corruption.

Even in the hallowed sciences there is fraud. In one survey of scientists, 2% admitted to publishing results they knew to be phony, but 14% said they knew of other scientists participating in such fraud. I saw one or two instances myself when I was working in research academia. In the sciences, competition for funding, prestige, and tenure explains a lot.

Guys like Ray Santilli do not somehow invalidate all UFO reports. That's pure guilt by association.

There are still many, many extremely high quality cases that have withstood the test of time and massive investigation. Think cases like 1964 Socorro, 1976 Tehran, 1980 Belgium, Rendlesham, 1948 Chiles-Whited, even 1947 Kenneth Arnold and Roswell, etc., etc.

cda said...

But we all know that James Carrion has satisfactorily (?) dealt with Arnold and Roswell (and Maury Island). As for the others, elementary my dear Watson. Socorro? Well maybe even Sherlock could not solve this.

paul thompson said...

David - You said "Guys like Ray Santilli do not somehow invalidate all UFO reports. That's pure guilt by association." Those are YOUR words. I did NOT say guys like Santilli invalidate ALL UFO reports. I just said he is an example of the fact that there are "all too many fraudsters and hucksters" in the UFO world. And that is and remains true.

David Rudiak said...

Paul Thompson wrote:

David - You said "Guys like Ray Santilli do not somehow invalidate all UFO reports. That's pure guilt by association." Those are YOUR words. I did NOT say guys like Santilli invalidate ALL UFO reports. I just said he is an example of the fact that there are "all too many fraudsters and hucksters" in the UFO world. And that is and remains true.

And it remains true in ALL fields of HUMAN endeavor, which was my point. This doesn't mean that the whole barrel is bad because of a few bad apples.

As an old prof once said, the ratio of horses to horses asses doesn't vary with the pasture. Why single out Ufology? It has its charlatans, just like everything else.

Terry the Censor said...

> This doesn't mean that the whole barrel is bad because of a few bad apples.

Doctor Rudiak, please, that's twice you've misrepresented what Mr. Thompson said.

Are you reading his actual words and then having a genuine reaction, or by reflex are you just pulling Rhetorical Defence #134 off the shelf because it almost but not quite fits the situation?

David Rudiak said...

I wrote:
"This doesn't mean that the whole barrel is bad because of a few bad apples."

Terry wrote:
Doctor Rudiak, please, that's twice you've misrepresented what Mr. Thompson said.

Huh? I did?

Are you reading his actual words and then having a genuine reaction, or by reflex are you just pulling Rhetorical Defence #134 off the shelf because it almost but not quite fits the situation?

I reacted originally to his following statement:

"This case is a classic example of the fact the the UFO world has in it all too many fraudsters and hucksters and it is one reason I am very skeptcial [sic] about ALL [my emphasis] signiciant [sic] UFO claims."

The operative word is "all". Had he instead written that because of the hoaxers he was skeptical of many or even most significant UFO claims, I wouldn't have taken much issue with it. (Though studies show the actual level of hoaxing tends to be very low. Most witnesses are honest but usually mistaking something mundane for a a "true" UFO, i.e., something that even the experts can't explain after investigation.)

Or had he written one has to approach each high-profile case with some skepticism because experience has taught us that SOME have turned out to be hoaxes, again no disagreement.

It was that "all" that got me. It certainly sounded like Paul Thompson was saying there were no good UFO cases, even ones that have been very thoroughly investigated with absolutely no evidence of any hoaxing--Socorro, Tehran, etc., etc.

Steve Sawyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Sawyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Sawyer said...

Part 1 of 2:

"Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!"

Or simply trolling, Mr. Allen [CDA]?

No, James Carrion has not satisfactorily "dealt with" nor explained either the original Arnold sighting or the Roswell incident. Not at all.

The Maury Island incident is a known hoax, and that was clear long before Carrion weighed in on the subject.

If you carefully read Carrion's recent post on the subject of "Flying Saucers -- The Greatest Lie Ever Told," [May 8, 2012] at:

http://bit.ly/IVWWyB

You will find myriad suppositions and claims, but no documentation, citations, or evidential references to support his contentions. After this was pointed out on UFO UpDates, he then said he planned another blog post to supply such background data for others to vet and check into, in "a couple weeks." We'll see, if and when.

Yet, if that info was available, why didn't he provide it as part of his initial article in the first place? He has several historical facts, or allegations, incorrect in his article.

He also seems unaware of certain documented, declassified SIGINT and COMINT historical facts, which is surprising, coming from a former US Army SIGINT specialist, as Carrion once was.

While the political atmosphere post-WWII between the U.S. and the Soviets was tense, it wasn't until early March, 1948, with the Trumnan-initiated "war scare" (to reverse U.S. public isolationalism post-WWII), and Vandenberg's late March, 1948 Top Secret orders to deploy fighter and bomber defenses in the Pacific Northwest (out of concern that Soviet bombers might be deployed to attack Hanford's nuclear facilities, etc.), that tensions accelerated between the two adversarial nations.

With the advent of the Berlin crisis in June of 1948, the genuine beginnings of the Cold War began in a crisis atmosphere.

There are a variety of other historical facts that Carrion gets wrong in his article, like about the Venona Project, and that are in dispute with known declassified documentation.

Examples:

http://cryptome.org/2012/05/cia-opc.pdf

[regards 1948 origins and history of U.S./CIA covert and psywar ops]

http://1.usa.gov/huijnm

http://1.usa.gov/uhZzqC

[Links above to NSA declassified docs and history/origins of the Venona Project]

Steve Sawyer said...

Part 2 of 2:

In others words, for Carrion to allege Top Secret U.S. government CIG/CIA and ASA/NSA (and their predecessors and related orgs) to have been involved in using the "flying saucer lie" as early as 1947, via the Arnold, Roswell, or Maury Island incidents, as the basis for the beginning of an anti-Soviet counter-intelligence psyop, or ET technology to supplement our nuclear capability, if required in a confrontation, and in order to surface Soviet sleeper agents and associated KGB/GRU interest I believe is incorrect, based on the historical record. Carrion's comments about cryptological "gardening" also incorrect.

The U.S. didn't even anticipate a potential US-Soviet nuclear confrontation until the 1952 to 1954 period, although the Soviets did surprise us with their first nuclear test in 1949.

So, all things considered, Carrion's conclusions about the nature and source of the Arnold and Roswell incidents as being military and/or intelligence agency counter-intelligence psyops don't seem valid if one examines the historical record closely.

I suspect more than anything, Carrion is revealing a form of confirmation bias, or his perspective on those UFO-related incidents as being promulgated by the U.S. government, and unless he can provide better documentation and confirmable, vettable data and citations, his comments are simply yet another form of personal contention, IMHO, or a kind of ex post facto analysis and interpretation, but with inadequate documentation to actually make the case of what he alleges occurred.

And that's a real problem, and goes to a lack of credible, evidential bona fides -- where's the historical and evidence to support his claims?

cda said...

Steve:

All right, I was joking or, shall we say, being slightly provocative over Carrion and his semi-dotty ideas.

But I won't go any further because I am pretty certain Kevin does not desire to pursue this particular topic on his blog. And I am equally certain the 'dream team' won't pursue it either.

Steve Sawyer said...

@CDA:

Hmmmm... I think the term "snarky" might be more apropos.

And I note you couldn't resist a similarly cynical remark about rhetorically urging Santilli of the fabulous financial opportunities available in staging an "Alien Autopsy 2" for the benefit of credulous Aztec crash believers in the thread of the newer KR post on the Ramsey's new book.

Perhaps you could offer to broker a DVD/book package deal between Ray and the Ramsey's?

You're a... funny guy, Mr. Allen. 8^I

But, I agree this blog is not the place to debate Carrion's carrion.

I'll pursue that at UFO UpDates, instead, once he posts his promised follow-up blog, which I certainly hope contains at least some genuine data, verifiable references and supporting documentation of at least some kind to vet.

But, I won't be holding my breath in the interim.

Somehow, I doubt Carrion can prove his case, although I do suspect later, post-1947 counter-intelligence psyops were promulgated by various elements of the U.S. military and civilian intelligence agencies at times in later years using the UFO phenomenon as a basis, just not in the manner or as early as Carrion seems to believe.

More later, and elsewhere, unless KR decides to make comment or post on Carrion's rather thinly-based assertions.