Wednesday, May 11, 2016

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 All of this is explained in great detail with examples of this in historical documents.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.

Best Regards
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.


TheDimov said...

oh wow I didn't even think about that, flipping the beam over and it reading another word, clever! All I remember is seeing it as a kid, and not being fooled by it all, I mean if you still believe in it today after all that has been revealed, quite frankly you're an idiot. Even as a kid you wondered why it was done with someone walking around with a camera in such dramatic fashion and not being taped using a tripod, just as Dr Randle states, and even my younger, naïve eyes could see this was footage that they had tried hard to make look old but failed to, you could tell it was more modern footage.
And the whole integrating new footage with genuine footage thing, I mean that's laugh-out-loud stuff. And that some people buy it... well that's just stone face scary.

cda said...

Which is more laughable:

1. Mixing old, genuine footage with new, specially created footage, in the same autopsy movie.
2. Mixing genuine UFO debris with substituted balloon debris in the same photos (as per the Ft.Worth pics)

KRandle said...


I'll vote for number 1 because 2 is just a tiny bit more plausible. Please note that I said tiny bit.

Unknown said...

Spyros didn't meet Ray until the first week in April, 1995.
Ray was already describing in detail the creature and other features of the
AA footage. Spyros didn't start working for Ray until well after the May (1995) showing of the AA to ufologists.
Spyros doesn't have any evidence that he worked for Ray before that, so how could he have masterminded the entire AA. He didn't have the time or opportunity. He did make a short documentary on Roswell in 1996 which Ray paid for and couldn't use because he thought it was a "pile of crap". Spyros can talk a good game, but if you examine his statements closely, you'll see it's all BS. At least make him produce some evidence that he did what he says he did.

Brian B said...


Good question. What I think is odd is that the Fort Worth photos show old neoprene rubber balloons - not new ones. It's always claimed that Ramey had a new one taken "up" and brought "down" to produce smashed substitute.


That the fake substitute was brought from Roswell instead.

Funny thing is the stuff doesn't look new to me - especially with a sun wrinkled black hunk of neoprene.

I'm sure David will claim either Ramey or Blanchard kept broken balloon parts as standard protocol "just in case" an alien disk ever happened to crash outside their base.

KRandle said...

Ed Ed -

I say again, though I am sure that you'll simply ignore it, that just weeks after Ray's May reveal, I saw the tent footage, the autopsy and the debris footage. At that time I
saw the markings on the H-beam and could see that they said "video." The lettering was always there so you have a real problem... and please don't ask if I have seen all the footage because I have.

cda said...

This idea of mixing the 'real thing' with added 'substitued extras' to make the whole thing look genuine reminds me of the (in)famous Piltdown skull forgery which dates back to 1912.

An orang-utan's mandible was combined with a 'modern' human cranium to produce the skull of an alleged ancient hominid. And anthropologists were indeed fooled, for over 40 years.

The difference between this and the AA film affair (or the Ft. Worth photos affair) is that scientists are NOT fooled by the either of the latter two, or are just not interested in them. With the AA film the attempt was to prove it was a genuine ET. With the Ft.Worth photos the attempt (according to the pro-ETHers) was to try and cover up the fact that it was ET.

Strange subject is ufology. Very strange.

Unknown said...

Kevin wrote:
I say again, though I am sure that you'll simply ignore it, that just weeks after Ray's May reveal, I saw the tent footage, the autopsy and the debris footage.

I don't doubt that you saw this footage. Do you have your own copy? The tent footage was a known hoax created by some of Ray's friends. The debris footage was filmed in a tent, but had no connection to the "tent" footage. Ray put all this in a video and sold it for $50-$60. Is that what you viewed?

Kevin wrote:At that time I saw the markings on the H-beam and could see that they said "video."

Much of the debris had marking of some kind and one of the beams had markings that somewhat resemble "video". I think it's only an interesting coincidence.

Kevin also wrote:The lettering was always there so you have a real problem.

I don't know what you mean by this statement. The debris footage was always part of the footage that Ray purchased and sold so yes the "video" marking were always there.
But why is this so important when there are so many other aspects of the AA to consider? The beams in the trunk of Rays auto shown during the Eamon investigation are not the same as those in the AA debris. That's what Neal Morris was trying to point out. The trunk debris is a poor copy. You can even see the tape.

Unknown said...

CDA wrote:This idea of mixing the 'real thing' with added 'substitued extras' to make the whole thing look genuine reminds me of the (in)famous Piltdown skull forgery which dates back to 1912.

Ed answered: Yes, of course there isn't any way that Ray could take parts or sections of vintage film and mix it together with later footage and come out with anything that resembles the AA footage. This is a fabrication forced on Ray for some reason that he's not revealing. This doesn't mean that Spyros's version is any closer to reality. I believe that the main parts of Ray's story are true including the cameraman and his drawings and crash site directions.

What do you think of this interview?

KRandle said...

Ed -

At the time of the great reveal, the tent footage was marketed as the first, preliminary autopsy. Only later was it admitted to be a hoax which should worry you greatly but apparently doesn't.

The reason the "video" writing on the H-Beam is so important is because it is supposed to be an alien writing system. What do you think the odds are that a piece of debris from an alien spacecraft would contain the word, "video" and this would be visible on a video of that debris? The mind boggles... especially that anyone could believe that there is anything authentic about this.

No, I am not talking about the video that Santilli sold. I am talking about the material that was in the hands of various documentary producers who had video provided to them by Santilli for the purposes of making their various productions including one for British TV and one for American TV. I saw everything that existed.

And yes, I have seen the whole of the video, I have had the chance to study it at length with various experts and there is absolutely nothing about it that suggests it is anything other than a hoax.

Unknown said...

There were no "various documentary producers" who had access to the footage.
There was only Bob Keviat who produced for Fox. Most folks have only seen
the Fox production. What others were produced?
Who were the other "experts" you discussed this with?

"However, no one has found any evidence of special effects being used in this autopsy film-although today, unquestionably, nearly everything can be faked with the latest state-of-the-art FX techniques. On the other hand, pathologists and physicians from all over the world who saw the film were pretty sure the body was not a dummy, but actually a corpse-human or humanoid.

Unknown said...

There was only one producer and that was Bob Kiviet and Fox TV and as far as I know
there were no copies of the footage released except to T. Carlson and Neil Morris and the folks she was working with. I'm not aware of any British version. The first version Ray sold for $60-$100 had the "tent footage" so that must have been what you saw because after that, only the autopsy and the debris were sold. I bought mine from Chuck Harder, including the "Tent footage" for $10. Ray took Chuck to court over copyright infringement, and lost mainly because the footage was considered government property, but the ruling wasn't clear. Ray had to pay court costs.
Do you really think he'd take a hoaxed footage to a US courts?

Bob K and Ray and Fox all had several experts view the footage, including FX folks and all seemed impressed. Here's an example:
Prof. Pierluigi Baima Bollone, University of Turin, Italy: "When we look at the inner organs of the body we find no single organ that in any way resembles any human organ. The main organ, which could be the liver, has neither the shape nor the location of a human liver. The face of the alleged extraterrestrial shows surprising anatomical features: very big ocular orbits, a very flat nasal pyramid, a mouth somehow wide open...nevertheless, the face is flat, there is no evidence of facial musculature which is present in human beings and is responsible for the large variety of facial expressions of the human species... My overall impression is that we are dealing with a creature that seems to belong to our species but is so clearly different from us that it seems absurd to speculate about the similarity."


KRandle said...

Ed -

Not only did I work with Bob Kiviat but also with the producers of the British documentary and have seen the work done for the French TV documentary.

Please don't tell me what I saw because you were not there and have no idea what it was. And I say, once again, that the word "video" appeared on the H-Beam on it. It had nothing to do with Ant and Dec or any movie produced for them. This was the original footage, from which the faked security classifications were removed... there was no footage of Truman walking the debris field as has been claimed and the 2.5 hours of footage never appeared... I am done talking about this. It was a hoax.

KRandle said...

Ed -

For fun take a look at this:

Unknown said...

You wrote: "This was the original footage, from which the faked security classifications ("Restricted access, AO I classification”) were removed"

Ed writes:
Yes this is the "tent footage" that was created by folks Ray first hired to see if they could get any images from one of the canisters of film that Ray purchased but
found almost unusable. They couldn't retrieve any images so they decided to
trick Ray and make an autopsy tape of their own. This is the "Tent Footage". Ray had nothing to do with its creation

It was they who added the ("Restricted access, AO I) classification sign, But the strange fact is that "Restrictive" was the classification for Project "Grudge"
and probably for any autopsies on dead aliens.
The only way these guys could have this information was to take it from the label on the film canister Ray provided. They certainly didn't take it from their heads.

I also visited the link you provided. They're wrong about both the Roswell slides creature and the Alien Autopsy. Ignorance comes in many packages. This particular graphic of the AA surgeon is an important moment in the AA footage. Can you tell me why?

KRandle said...

Ed -

Sorry, but are you nuts?

Nearly everyone in the world knows that the Roswell Slides depict an unfortunate child who died centuries ago. The placard was read. Dolan bailed. Schmitt bailed. Carey bailed. The documentation is overwhelming and you think this is an alien creature? I have to ask again. Are you nuts?

With the Alien Autopsy, it's everyone else's fault for the problems. Ray had nothing to do with it, other than making millions of dollars. It is an admitted hoax. The participants are known and you keep asking questions that are irrelevant because it is a hoax.

Anyone who had studied the UFO field knew of the various classifications as they existed in 1947... even MJ-12 had Restricted on it and that too is a hoax, though I suspect you believe it as well. There is just no reasoning with some people. Do you believe the moon landings were a hoax? Or that those of us who served in Iraq were actually fighting aliens on Mars? When does the madness end?

Brian B said...

@ Ed who wrote:

"I also visited the link you provided. They're wrong about both the Roswell slides creature and the Alien Autopsy. Ignorance comes in many packages."

Wow Ed....! What sort of "package" is your ignorance?


Unknown said...


"Restricted" was not a well known classification.
When the AA first surfaced, this security marking
was one of the main objections. Kent Jeffrey
made a big deal out of it. I pointed his error out to him
and he said I was crazy because "restrictive" wasn't used
in the military.
I've been a long time critic of ML12, one of the first and
knew Ray was totally ignorant of Roswell and UFO in general.
There was no way for him to know about "restrictive" since it's only mentioned once
that I'm aware of.
Why are you being so rude about this? You brought up the "restrictive"
issue and I was just trying to clarify it. There's no reason to not believe
the information about the "tent footage" since its been
verified by Ray's friends and others involved.
Any discussion of the "tent footage" is a red herring. To mix it in with
the AA is a mistake and has caused major confusion. There were no security markings on any of the AA footage, at least none that we know about. Where did you learn about "restrictive" being the classification for UFO information during this period.

KRandle said...

Ed -

Because you just don't get it. The Roswell Slides show the remains of an unfortunate child who is being exploited by those who claim to be human. This should never have progressed to the point it did, and those who engineered it should be ashamed of what they did... Dew and Beason come to mind here. To suggest that the slides show anything else is a rejection of the mountain of evidence as to the real identity.

And you have been banging this Alien Autopsy is real drum long enough. It is a hoax... a money making hoax but a hoax. You forget that the first interview with the cameraman was written by an Englishman and when it was pointed out, the transcript was altered... a sure sign of hoax. You forget that the autopsy violated a bunch of Army regulations as to how these were to be preformed... meaning autopsies in general and there is no reason for the violations... you forget that we were told about all this footage available and now it's reduced to what? Four minutes? You have Santilli telling us that the tent footage is a hoax but the rest is not. You have him telling us that Kodak had examined the film, but they had not. At what point do you realize that this is a fake?

Oh, BTW, had this been a real Army film, there would have been proper security markings on the leader of the film telling where, when, and by whom the film had been shot. Even cameramen crouched on the beaches of Iwo Jima in WW II did all that.

So just give it up as the hoax it is.

Unknown said...

Kevin wrote:
Because you just don't get it. The Roswell Slides show the remains of an unfortunate child who is being exploited by those who claim to be human ... To suggest that the slides show anything else is a rejection of the mountain of evidence as to the real identity:

Kevin, All,
I sent this to Richard Doble (one of the experts who were asked by the slides team to examine the slides and the creature), along with other information that had been gathered. This was his reply:

Please be clear.  The slide is of a creature not of this earth.  
There are two more major diagnostic features that I have not 
mentioned because the quality on the  slides I have access to do not 
have as many pixels as they should.  However, one feature clearly 
indicates that under no circumstances is the creature in this  photo 
human.  The other trait clearly indicates that this creature did not 
evolve on earth.   There is no room to quibble about any of this.  It 
is quite clear and very similar to all the other evidence.  I have 
worked around mummies including both North American and Egyptian.  
This slide is not a mummy... it is also not a child.  Differentiating adult and 
child skeletons is extremely easy if you know what you are doing.  
The logic you  are presenting is much like what happened 35 years ago 
after the US landed on the moon.  There were people who seriously 
maintained that the moon should did not happen because they could not 
see it from  earth.  Or like saying a quarter and a silver dollar are 
the same things as they are both round and made of metal.  
What I said last summer is that the idea that this is the picture of 
a mummified human child is the Triple Whopper Theory.   It is not a 
mummy.  It is not a human.  It is not a child.  To suggest otherwise 
is simple clueless and illiterate crap no matter how well meaning any 
of the commentators are.  
 I have studied, taught, and researched all around a creature like 
the one in the picture.  I have also done forensic work for the RCMP, 
Canada's national police force.  What I have to stay stands on the 
evidence available.  I have no financial interests in any of this.
 The Mexican researcher is a medical doctor.  He is interested in 
forensics but he is not a forensic anthropologist.  Much of what he 
says is dead on but part of it is not because he does not have as 
well rounded a background in evolutionary biology, vertebrate 
paleontology, physical anthropology and the likes.  I have studied 
and taught this stuff in several places including one of the world's 
supposedly top 20 universities.
 It is interesting to read what has been written but it is over the 
deep end in assorted places.
 I hope this helps.
Richard Doble.

Don't you think we should give these slides another closer examination?

Unknown said...

Kevin wrote:
"you forget that we were told about all this footage available and now it's reduced to what? Four minutes? "

Nothing has been cut from the original footage. The second autopsy reported by several witnesses including Philip has never been shown to the general public but we do know it exists. There has always been 17+ minutes of released and sold footage.

The tent footage was never counted because the cameraman recognized that this footage was a fake and Ray never used it after that. As I've written before : The tent footage has caused no end of arguments and problems for researchers. It was only a poor attempt as a practical joke and now money has made it even more confusing. It should never have been considered as part of the AA footage. it's a dead end.

KRandle said...

Ed -

Your blatant appeal to authority... he knows more about this than you do... fails. We have heard all this before and it comes from Doble, Tom Carey's handpicked pal from his days studying anthropology. There are many others, with equal or better credentials that disagree... not to mention that we have photographs of the mummy taken at the time of excavation and by others in the museum setting. Do you actually think the government would have allowed that?

With all the documentation available, with all the other evidence available.. with those who "found" the picture back to their making a documentary about how gullible UFO researchers are, is there really anything else to say. If the poor child could sit up and tell you his history, you would find a reason to discount it. There is obviously no evidence that you will accept that it is a mummy on display in a museum and there is no evidence that you will reject that doesn't play into your belief structure. This is not an alien creature and if you can't see this, then you have some critical thinking problems.

And I refuse to engage in any more dialogue about the Alien Autopsy hoax.

Daniel Transit said...

KRandle said...

'..with all the other evidence available.. with those who "found" the picture back to their making a documentary about how gullible UFO researchers are, is there really anything else to say...'

Are you implying here that the friends of Bernard/Bernerd Ray and Hilda Blair Ray that appeared in the BeWitness event were ignorant of this documentary plan as you characterise it; and were, as such, tricked into the May 5th event by Adam Dew and/or the Beason man (about whom I know nothing)?

Or, were these (alleged) friends of the couple knowingly part of the documentary plan, as actors, also deceiving?

You surely can't be suggesting that the Ray couple never really existed?

What has happened to the documentary? When is it going to come out? Can you point us in the direction of any material evidence, other than anecdotal that it is '..about how gullible UFO researchers are...'?

KRandle said...

Daniel =

They knew a documentary was being made, but they thought the purpose was to tell the story of the slides. Dew and Beason (who was apparently the owner of the slides) had a different sort of documentary in mind.

The Rays had no part in this, other than the slides were allegedly once owned by them and they might have been who had taken them originally. The Rays were a red herring and dragged off some investigative resources in an attempt to learn more about them.

Apparently the documentary is still an on going project and for evidence of the nature of it, all you need to do is look at the "trailer" Kodachrome" to see the tone. Others who were involved in this whole fiasco have mentioned the tone of the documentary to me.

I would ask you who these friends of Bernard and Hilda Ray are. As far as I know, no one who knew them appeared in the fiasco in Mexico City.

Unknown said...

Kevin wrote:
We have heard all this before and it comes from Doble, Tom Carey's handpicked pal from his days studying anthropology. There are many others, with equal or better credentials that disagree..

I haven't seen anything or anyone who directly disagrees with Richard Doble.
Do these folks say why they disagree? Richard is very clear about what he finds disturbing about the creature: number and shape of ribs, teeth, bone connections, skull shape and size and many other objections. Is there someone who refutes
his observations?

It was the burial that interested me since Hopi children are usually not given
much of a ceremony, but the creature had an elaborate burial with grave goods and a special, well hidden grave, and was wrapped in expensive cotton cloth.

I think the Rey's took the photos because they saw the same problems that Richard
has found.
I hope someone gets a chance to study the remains
while the creature is still above ground and accessible.
Is anyone looking?

KRandle said...

Ed –

You just keep embarrassing yourself. You find one source and quote him as if he is the only one to ever examine the SLIDE. He didn’t even see the actual, physical body and we don’t know how good the scan that he examined was.

On the other hand, there is Dr. Richard O’Connor, who wrote to Linda Moulton Howe that he had been able to confirm the deblurring of the placard to his satisfaction but that the statement on the placard “cannot be correct.”

O’Connor joined the alien body team after the May 5th program. Maussan interviewed O’Connor via Skype because he had solid medical credentials and he spoke English. It was used as part of an article that claimed, “Doctors Agree: Roswell Slides Show a Nonhuman Body.”

This interview that was posted to YouTube would be of some value in supporting that idea of “two bodies” meaning as Maussan claims that the image in the Roswell Slides is not the same as the image found in the other documentation It seemed that Maussan had found another voice to support his point of view but all that changed. O’Connor, having seen the FOIA material recovered by Shepherd Johnson, said, “Yeah, I’ve just, over the past 48 hours more or less, been looking at that, and it seems to me like it's drawing us toward the conclusion that in fact is this photograph probably does represent a native American child. There were some, a couple of photographs in the last pages of that set of documents, one of them in particular on page 176, and in my opinion it really does show a different photograph of what is very likely the same child.”

So,one of those who had once suggested the body was and whose words had been posted to the Internet, had now reversed himself. After seeing all the available documentation, he changed his mind.

Curt Collins who did most of the research on this aspect of the case, sent an email to O’Connor and was surprised to get a response and an invitation to give him a telephone call. According to Collins, at his Blue Blurry Lines website, “He told me that looking at a photograph is fraught with pitfalls, and mentioned the fact that the quality of the Slides photograph was not very good, the details were not clear due to the blurry photograph, which was taken at an angle from the body (and possibly distorted by the glass in the case).”

You can read all about it here:
That good enough for you?

KRandle said...

Ed –

I thought that O’Connor wouldn’t be good enough for you since you seem to ignore all evidence contrary to your belief structure, so, what about this?

Dr. Daniel Antoine, Institute for Bioarchaeology - Curator of Physical Anthropology, “Based on the photograph, this appears to be the mummified remains of a very young child. The mummification process is likely to have been natural (i.e. buried in a very hot or arid environment) but it may also have been intentionally embalmed.”

François Gaudard, University of Chicago, “To me it looks indeed like a mummy: the mummy of a child. The item on the other side of the mummy appears to be remnants of mummy bandages, but it is difficult to tell for sure. However, since some parts of the mummy look a little shiny, for example, the right hand and just below the ribs, it makes me wonder whether it could be varnished or made of plastic? And also why is the text on the label not visible as if someone was trying to hide something?”

Frode Storaas, University Museum of Bergen, “This seems to be a mummy, but not from old Egypt. Mummies are found many places. The photo indicates that this mummy is exhibited, or stored, somewhere and by someone who probably can tell more.” [Should I point out here that this is right on point. That documentation exists.]

Dr. Suzanne Onstine, University of Memphis, “It does appear to be human remains (and likely a child), although the photo is too blurry to tell if artificial mummification procedures were done. It is certainly possible the body was naturally mummified due to dry climate and soil. That kind of thing happened all the time in many cultures.”

Is this good enough, Ed?

KRandle said...

Ed -

I thought not, so how about this?

S.J. Wolfe, Director of the EMINA (Egyptian Mummies in North America) Project, “Okay, it is a mummy, but very hard to tell if it Egyptian, South American or European. I see no wrappings of any kind, it appears to be a child or youth. Do you have a provenance on the slide??? That may help the determination.” [Ah, the lack of provenance rears its ugly head.]

Dr. Ronald Leprohon, University of Toronto, “Where was this shot taken? It looks like a museum. What did the label say? Did you ask the folks there? I’m sure they’d have information on their displays. It certainly looks like a mummy but it’s pretty blurry so it’s difficult to see properly. Sorry I can’t be more helpful, and good luck in your quest” [A really astute comment by someone who only had a scan of the slide to examine.]

Dr. Patricia Podzorski, University of Memphis, “Based on the image you sent, it appears that what you saw is the preserved remains of a human body, or a good imitation thereof. Since no wrappings are clearly visible in the photo, I can not determine the culture (Egypt, Peru, Asia, North America, etc.) or the date/ period (ancient or recent) of origin. Given that the head is turned slightly to the side and the color, it might not be an unwrapped ancient Egyptian mummy, but I am not able to be certain based on the visual information.”

Salima Ikram, American University in Cairo, “I confirm that the photo is of a mummy of a child, possibly Peruvian or even Egyptian.” [Another scientist who was to accurately identify the remains from the slide without going off into the extraterrestrial.]

Denise Doxey, Curator, Ancient Egyptian, Nubian and Near Eastern Art, Museum of fine arts, Boston. “Yes, that would appear to be the mummy of a small child.
You can read about these analyses here:

Brian B said...

Ed wrote:

"Is there someone who refutes his [Dolan's] observations?"

Plenty of people refute it. On this blog just about everyone both skeptic and ET proponent. Elsewhere on the web other ufologists as well.

KRandle said...

Ed -

One other thing. The child probably wasn't Hopi as you have concluded but Sinaqua since it was found at Montezuma Castle. The Sinaqua vanished some time ago and it is believed by some scholars that they joined with the Hopi. Your comment about the burial customs of the Hopi are not actually relevant here... and the only thing of interest I found was that small children were sometimes interred in the floor of the parent's rooms (after death of course).

So, now, I hope we have disavowed you of the notion that the image on the slides is a alien creature. It is a small child or do you plan to return to the claim that Richard Doble said otherwise.

KRandle said...

Brian -

There is no need to pile on here...

and BTW, it was Doble's observations that he was referring to.

Unknown said...

Richard wrote, (private email)
"What I said last summer is that the idea that this is the picture of 
a mummified human child is the Triple Whopper Theory. It is not a 
mummy. It is not a human. It is not a child. To suggest otherwise 
is simple clueless and illiterate crap no matter how well meaning any 
of the commentators are."
None of the folks you cited discussed the main points that Richard
thinks are important for understanding the slides.
Not one discussed the shape and number of ribs, or any other evidence that Richard thinks needs to be discussed. There was a very astute Mexican Doctor during the reveal who also testified about the creature's unusual characteristics. Are you going to ignore him?
For some unknown reason the Rey's took photos of an unusual display of bones. Don't you want to know why?

KRandle said...

My Lord Ed -

Are you completely nuts? I provide you with a long list of experts who had the opportunity to look at the scans of the slides and they said that it was a mummy. They worried about things like provenance which can be provided in the documents from the National Park Service, other pictures have been located, and it is clear to nearly everyone on the North American Continent that it is a mummy.

Your response? Well, they didn't refute Doble's nonsense point by point. You forget he only saw a scan and not the remains himself. He is ignoring the documentation and has the audacity to say, "To suggest otherwise 
is simple clueless and illiterate crap no matter how well meaning any 
of the commentators are."

These commentators are experts in their fields. They understand mummies. They worked with the same evidence as Doble. So, yes, I'm going to ignore him because he is wrong.

And I think you had better reevaluate your thought processes because it is clear that you ignore any evidence that does not fit into your belief structure. You should be ashamed of your continued exploitation of that unfortunate child to further your own nonsensical theories.

I say again. The slides show a mummy. We know when it was excavated. We have pictures of it as it was being excavated. We have a trail of evidence from its discovery to the museums and its eventual return to its tribal home and you have one guy in Canada who looked at a freaking slide telling us it isn't human. Come back when you actually have some evidence on your side.

Mr. Sweepy said...

Kevin, don't waste your time on Ed anymore is my thought. It is said it took the caveman a million years to figure out how to make a spearhead and attach it to hunt animals. In Ed's case, it might take him two million years. :)

Philip Mantle said...

The alien autopsy film is a hoax made for money, end of story. I have examined in person a large amount of the documentary evidence provided by Spyros Melaris and it is compelling and proves beyond any doubt that he is the man who led the team that faked it. Regards, Philip Mantle.