Meier Explains the Alien Autopsy

There are those who read my blog who say that they really don’t want to hear any more about Billy Meier and his alleged contacts with alien beings. There are others who say that arguing with true believers is a waste of time because no matter what evidence is presented, it will never be enough to show them the errors in their true beliefs. But sometimes I just have to poke the stick into the Hornet’s Nest (capitalized as a small tribute to the 116^th AHC) to see what flies out.

The latest evidence that Meier might not be the sage some say that he is, revolves around the Ray Santilli alien autopsy hoax. According to the information, “In the 253rd Contact from 1995 and in the 256th Contact from 1996, Pleiadians, Florena and Ptaah claimed that in regards to the famous Santilli alien film, it was not about the alien, but the figure of a 16 year-old girl having been abused to make the autopsy film. According to them the girl is supposed to suffer from the strange illness ‘proteria,’ and this illness has nothing to do with the illness more widely known as ‘progeria.’”

You can find this prediction on a number of websites. Two of them are:

http://www.exopolitika.cz/the-analysis-why-billy-meiers-pleiadians-lie-and-disinform/1516

and

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/meier/esp_meier10.htm

Here’s the trouble with this. The alien autopsy is a hoax and those who were involved in it have confessed, repeatedly to that hoax, explaining how it was done. I

John Humphreys works on the alien. Photo copyright
by Philip Mantle

have reported on this in this blog and in the book, Alien Mysteries, Conspiracies and Cover-ups. It includes pictures of the alleged alien as it is being constructed for filming showing that it was not a human being.

More to the point, I can find nothing about the strange illness of proteria. There is Angina Pectoria, which simply is chest pains and something called protean which is about changing shapes. The example was of an amoeba. But it seems that the very existence of the disease, proteria, is controversial and isn’t found in medical books or any of the medical definitions and diseases cited on the Internet.

Humphreys and the creature. Photo copyright by Mantle.

The point, of course, is that his prediction is in error. It suggests that those making the alien autopsy film had subjected a minor girl to some form of abuse. But the creature in the film was created by those making the film, it wasn’t a real person. And Meier’s pals’ claim of the disease is in error as well.

At the same time, I was looking at this claim that Meier had 80 photographs of UFOs and this was documented in a 1964 English language newspaper in India. Actually, it said, “He has about 80 photographs of the space objects…”

About 80 is not the same as 80. That is, of course, splitting a fine hair, but it is something that the Meier crowd does on a regular basis. I will note the same article said that he had taken many more but that some 400 had been stolen. I’m not sure why anyone would steal 400 UFO photographs, but I do have an idea of what might have happened to them… they just weren’t very good.

Why do I say that?

Because I read a description of some of the 80 photographs that Meier managed to hang on to. The article said, “… a fourth is a big, bright cross and others bright zigzag lines.”

Those others are obviously of bright lights in which the camera is moved, creating those zigzag lines. It is not the motion of the light that caused them. Anyone who has examined UFO photographs have come across similar faked photos.

I have seen a few of these Meier pictures and most of them are not very good. As noted, one is of a big, bright cross and anyone who had ever developed his or her own black and white photographs knows how it was done. Once the photographic paper is set in the frame; a cross is set on top of it and the enlarger lamp is turned on. After the enlarger is turned off, the cross is removed and it is turned back on for a moment giving the impression that the clouds can be seen through the cross.

Another of these pictures is of eight bright, shapeless blobs seen in the sky. Clearly something had been put of the photographic paper to block the enlarger light, leaving white spots on the paper. This is why it is important to see the negatives. This sort of manipulation is obvious and if the negative is examined, it would be clear that the object in the print is not seen on the negative.

But it seems, based on this, that not all the photographs were of UFOs or alien spacecraft. A bright cross hovering over the landscape is in no way the same thing as a spacecraft. All it did was provide a clue about how some of the pictures were faked.

The final, hilarious, statement in the newspaper is one that we hear all the time from those reporting UFOs. They don’t want any publicity and yet they turn up in the newspaper. The article said, “He doesn’t want any publicity, he doesn’t care if anyone believes him or not.” But if not, how had the reporter learned that he had the UFO photographs? And if not, why tell the wild tale of hundreds of UFO photographs and visits to three planets. That is not the way to avoid publicity.

Alien Autopsy and the H-Beam

While the majority of us understand that the Alien Autopsy was a hoax created to make money, and that the participants in it have declared it a hoax, there are still those who hang on. They provide a variety of explanations for this. My favorite is that after Ray Santilli paid big dough for all these canisters of film, most had disintegrated before he could get them transferred to another medium, so they “recreated” the footage. There was a very small portion of those films that could be salvaged and they were added into this recreated footage, which to my mind ruined their value if they ever existed. If you have just a small portion of authentic footage of an actual alien autopsy, why contaminate it by “recreating” other parts and splicing it in. Why not just reveal the actual footage, however little you have? To do otherwise opens you up to claims of hoax.

For some reason this debate rages today with a small number of people claiming that parts of the autopsy footage is real. Never mind that military autopsies were always in color, were both filmed and photographed, and there would be a mounted camera in the room along with the photographers. All this was violated in the Alien Autopsy, but we’ll just ignore that.

When I posted my short article about the Alien Autopsy, it generated only a few comments, mostly from the usual suspects. Interestingly, one of those comments came from Spyros Melaris. He posted:

Hi All. 

The picture you show here is from a TV Doc that Shoefield and Santilli had a hand in. It was called Eamonn investigates alien autopsy. 

As usual Ed is WRONG...They are the actual pieces as given by me to Santilli. The language seen on the beams are a mixture of English, Greek and Egyptian styling. Actually the debri pieces were all designed by me and John. The words indeed the shapes of the items have a firm rooting in Magic history and optical illusions. All of this is explained in great detail with examples of this in historical documents. Be that as it may, The beam that reads VIDEO when turned upside down. This is called an 'Ambigram'. In this case, It reads VIDEO one way, and ELEFTHERIA the other way using the same letters. Eleftheria means FREEDOM in Greek. My thinking was most people would think the word VIDEO is a modern word and cause them to think this was a modern day film and therefore a fake, but an educated person would point out that Video is Latin and a very old rooted word. Eleftheria, seemed like a wonderful concept to name ones ship, or boat or in this case a spaceship. Although Ed maintains that the bits in Santillis trunk are not the same, they are. In my book I also reveal the entire footage of the Debris frame by frame BEFORE it was aged by me. My camera original is VERY clear and shows a lot more detail than the film we released into the public domain which I washed out and aged heavily and as a result, shows a lot less detail. I'm happy to amswer any questions you may have.

All the best, Spyros.

That, for me, pretty well ends the debate because you simply can’t say that those involved in the hoax haven’t come forward to explain it. For others, such is not the case because that comment was followed by this by Neil Morris:

You’re not going to get anywhere discussing the props from the Ant and Dec Alien Autopsy movie as that is what the stuff is in Ray’s car boot. It was recreated for the movie from the designs used in Spitz’s AA footage. Unfortunately Spitz over egged his recreation footage in a few places, I say this because the original “video” beam he based his version on didn’t have those raised symbols it actually only had the simple surface features as described by many of the original Roswell witnesses. Ie here’s the original beam.

http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/neil.morris/Pnlsyms.jpg

Best Regards

Neil.

But here is the problem for me. I saw the debris footage not long after the autopsy was announced and that included the tent footage that was too dark and wouldn’t make for compelling television, the black and white autopsy in a hospital-like setting, and the footage of some soldier wandering among the tables holding the debris. It was run several times, and what struck me then, before this Ant and Dec Alien Autopsy movie was even in the planning stages was that I-beam (yes, I know it is really an H-beam) had the “video” word on it then. It was about the first thing that I noticed and I say again that this was within weeks of the big unveil of the autopsy in London.

The H-Beam from the Alien Autopsy footage and not the Ant and Dec movie. Photo copyright by Philip Mantle.

Here’s the thing. We have the guy who created the film telling us some of the details about how it was done. We have the drawings and photographs of this as the creatures were created. And there is no real provenance for the footage. Nearly everything we were told about it was untrue from film of Truman walking the debris field to the film of the cameraman “confessing.” Finally we’re told that all this was for the movie by British comedians about the whole fiasco, and we are now supposed to believe that the evidence is actually from this movie rather than part of the original autopsy.

Well, no, it is not. I saw the original films and I saw the word video on the beam and I have been saying this for nearly two decades. That the word video is on the beam is just one more reason to reject the autopsy hoax… but there will always be those who simply can’t let go.

The Roswell Slides - A Matter of Provenance

I have said for a long time that one of the major hurtles in this slides controversy is the lack of provenance. According to the various inside sources including Tom Carey, Tony Bragalia and even Adam Dew, they simply don’t know who took the pictures, when they were taken and where they were taken. To make matters worse, there is no solid chain of custody for the slides. There are gaping holes in this important part of the story.

Back on February 20, 2015, Adam Dew, under the user name SlideBox Media, posted to Rich Reynolds UFO Conjectures blog the following:

A quick timeline as I understand it: Hilda died in 1988. Slides were discovered when emptying out a garage outside of Sedona (Cottonwood we think) in 1998. Slides were deemed interesting (obviously old color slides) but not fully examined until around 2008. While I think that the home may have belonged to Hilda’s lawyer, there is no way to know for sure as the woman who found them [the slides] didn’t keep records of the homes she cleaned out… I don’t think the slides came from Hilda’s home.

Could this be any vaguer?  The home might have belonged to Hilda’s lawyer but they don’t know. The house might have been in Sedona, but they’re not sure. There is no way to verify whose house it was and there is little to link the slides to Hilda Ray other than some of the other slides were marked with her name. He doesn’t think they came from Hilda’s home.

And with that we return to the question of provenance. They have absolutely nothing to go on given that statement. By comparison, the Ramey Memo has a provenance that is iron clad. No, I don’t want to discuss the various interpretations of the memo; I just want to establish how solid a provenance can be.

General Ramey is in the picture holding the document in question. J. Bond Johnson, the man who took the picture has been interviewed repeatedly about it, and while he certainly slid off the rails as time passed, there is no doubt that he was in Ramey’s office and he took the photograph. Even without his statements we would know this because the picture was transmitted over the news wire (INS) back in the day. Attached to the picture from the Bettmann Photo Archive, was a noted that it had been sent at 11:59 p.m. on July 8, 1947. Even if we didn’t have this, the picture had been published in various newspapers on July 9, 1947. The negative, which can be matched to picture, was stored at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram until it was given to the Special Collections at the University of Texas at Arlington so that the chain of custody has been preserved as well. I can’t think of another document dealing with the Roswell case that has such a provenance or chain of custody.

But you can see the difference. With the Roswell Slides, all that information simply doesn’t exist and I don’t know how you can ever gather it given what the current owner of the slides says. The chain of custody is broken in several places and because Dew has not revealed the name of the woman who supposedly found the slides so that she could be interviewed by independent researchers (and I doubt that he will give up the name) then that is just one more hole.

So why do we believe that these slides show alien creatures recovered outside of Roswell? Well, the film was apparently manufactured in 1947 which is not to say that it was exposed in 1947. The slide holder was used from something like 1940 to 1949, which opens up the range. Photo experts have suggested that the range could be even greater, though that isn’t much of an issue given all the other problems.

I have yet to hear a good reason for looking at these slides which were unlabeled and apparently separated from the others in the collection and concluding that they showed an alien body. If you’re the average guy, sitting out there looking at the slides and see a strange body on them, I don’t see how you can (a) conclude they are of alien creatures and (b) that they have anything to do with Roswell. The Rays lived in Midland, Texas and not Roswell and the slides were found in Sedona and not Roswell and are now in Chicago. Right now we don’t even have a good chain of custody from Sedona to Chicago.

This also generates another question that can be easily answered. Were all the slides in the box stamped with Hilda Ray’s name? Were others stamped with her husband’s? And if so, then how do we conclude that the slides belonged to the Rays other than proximity? Or I should say alleged proximity.

At this point, with Dew making so many claims, it seems that there is no way to provide a provenance or chain of custody. Any such attempt will be seen in the same light as that of Ray Santilli as he continued to change the story about who had owned the Alien Autopsy film and how he had come into possession of it. Dew has sort of locked in the tale of a house owned by someone, that was cleaned by someone who found the slides, which sat around for basically decades before anyone got around to looking at them and then deciding they showed an alien creature, an amazing deductive link.

This could spell the end of the slides saga simply because there is no way to verify how they came into existence or why those who saw them originally assumed they showed an alien creature. Without the important questions of provenance and chain of custody answered, there is no real reason to assume the being on the slides has anything to do with the Roswell case, or that it is an extraterrestrial creature. This is basically the same stumbling block that so many of us interested in the case have encountered before and there is no reason to assume that anyone outside of the UFO community is going to care about this… and there might not be that many inside who do.

The Alien Autopsy Poll

This poll, unscientific though it is, certainly opened my eyes and made me ask, "Are 78 of you crazy?"

Here is a case in which nearly everyone involved has admitted to making it up. Ray Santilli told us all, years ago, the tent footage was faked. We have people who were involved in all levels of this thing coming forward to tell of their roles in creating the various footage. Why, they even explained how that English word, "video" ended up on a rather crude I-beam that was supposed to have come from a wrecked flying saucer.

And 78 of you still think that some or all of the autopsy footage is real. What will it take to convince you otherwise?

Almost every UFO researcher or investigator who has expressed any opinion on this said that it was a hoax. There are so many red flags flying over the case that it looks like a May Day parade in Moscow. The story has changed so often that you need a scorecard to keep up. If there were any more twists in this tale, it would look like a deformed pretzel.

And 78 of you still think there is something real here?

I thought this one would be a slam dunk for rational thought. I believed that there were be a couple of people who wanted to hang onto the belief there was something of value in the autopsy footage... but 13% of the respondents in the poll?

Well, the results showed that 39 people (7%) thought it was real. Ten people (1%) thought it was mostly real. Twenty-nine people (5%) thought it was partially real. Thank goodness for the 466 (85%) who said that it was a hoax.

I mean, how much evidence do you believers in this require? Admissions don’t seem to be enough. Evidence of fakery isn’t enough. Photographs of the process of creating the hoax don’t do it. Just what do you require?

I will note here, quickly, that there are some other great UFO hoaxes that have yet to be wiped from the field. Admitted hoaxes that don’t seem to convince the diehards. Carlos Allende said he made up the Allende Letters, but there are those who won’t listen. Frank Kaufmann was exposed when his real documents were found but there are those who think he was a disinformation agent. Gerald Anderson admitted to creating a fake telephone bill, was caught with other forged documents, and people still believe his nonsense.

Anyway, those are the results of the poll. I am stunned that so many still believe in this autopsy nonsense, but then, there is no convincing some, regardless of the facts.

The Alien Autopsy is a HOAX

Over at UFO UpDates, Errol Bruce Knapp has just ended another in the long and useless conversations about the Alien Autopsy film. I believe his thinking was that nothing new was being added to the already tedious discussion.

He was right... because it is clear to anyone who has paid attention during the last couple of years, that the autopsy film was a hoax. Although some of those involved in the hoax suggest it wasn’t for money or fame but just something interesting to do, the real point is that it was a HOAX.

Yes, there are those who still insist the film is real and all you have to do, according to them, is study the film frame by frame, pay attention to the cameraman’s directions so that you can travel to the actual crash site, and review the analysis of some of the minerals picked up there. If you do, you will know that the alien autopsy is something real, at least in their fevered brains.

I’m going to mention something here that the believers of the autopsy might not realize. There is no cameraman. Never was. The interview offered with him, or rather the transcript of that interview, was filled with British terminology. Had the man been an American soldier as alleged, then the words used to described his military service would have been different. When all that was pointed out, the transcript was changed. That should have raised a red flag.

Second, when some markings suggesting a high classification were seen on the film canisters, many realized they were not real. When that was pointed out, the classification markings disappeared and that should have raised a red flag.

Third, the man who presented the film to the world, Ray Santilli, said in an interview that the tent footage, which was dark and nearly impossible to see, had been "recreated" from the real thing. In other, more precise words, it had been faked and that should have sent up sky rockets trailing red flags.

Finally, those who participated in many of the other autopsy footage segments have been identified and confirmed their role in the hoax. Philip Mantle, a British UFO researcher who had been studying the film from almost the moment that the film became known, wrote an article for the CUFOS International UFO Reporter that detailed the whole story.

Mantle interview Spyros Melaris, who said that he was one of the principals in the creation of the film. A transcript of that interview was published, online at www.outtahear.com/beyond_updates/autopsy.html.

In short, what it is, is the confession of Melaris on how he became involved, how the segments were created, and who was responsible for what. In other words, those who participated in the hoax have "confessed" their roles in it. Of course, for the true believers, this is just a scam to discredit the film.

In the interview published in IUR is a short segment called, "The Wreckage and I-Beams." I found it interesting because I had spotted an English word on one of those beams. Mantle explained:

Melaris created the "alien writing" from Greek lettering, ancient Egyptian stylizing, and his own artistic license. (Humpreys then manufactured the wreckage.) The writing on the main large beam, if translated correctly, reads "Freedom." He thought this a fitting name for an alien spacecraft. While designing the letters that spell Freedom, Melaris noticed that if the word is turned upside down, the word "Video" could be discerned. He adjusted some of the letters to better facilitate this reading, so the piece would throw a little red herring into the mix.

It would seem to me that the appearance of an English word, one referring to the medium that would tell the world of the find, is too big a coincidence. Would anything in an alien language and writing show an English word, especially one that suggested video?

So, the cameraman didn’t exist (and if he had, his identity would have been immediately known to any authorities who wished to arrest him for unauthorized release of classified material) and Santilli never produced him for interviews as promised. The number of reels of film changed frequently and when markings or part of the story were found wanting, they were changed as well. There was no real provenance for the film which screamed fake from the very beginning. And if that wasn’t enough, Santilli, said that the tent footage was faked and now we have another participant telling us that the other scenes were faked. Isn’t that enough to end the discussion?

I sincerely hope that this is the last time we need to address the alien autopsy nonsense. It is a hoax, an admitted hoax and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. I am astonished that there are still some who believe it to be real, and that explains why we just never get anywhere. No matter what the evidence, no matter what is known, there are some who refuse to acknowledge it.