Sunday, March 04, 2018

Why I'm Beginning to Dislike UFOlogy - Part One

This might be the beginning a new series to be published periodically when I discover that something nearly everyone agrees is a hoax, misidentification or misinterpretation of some natural phenomenon that is again promoted as something real. It seems to me that every few years, cases and reports that we thought had been solved to almost everyone’s satisfaction resurfaces with some sort of new life. Or, those few who cling to these ridiculous cases or reports reappear stating that we need to look at them again. They never present new information or provide any reason to reevaluate these cases but they are in their pitching for their renewed status.

The alien from the Autopsy.
The latest of these is the nonsensical Alien Autopsy that was unleashed on the world more than two decades ago. Though it generated a great deal of interest and made millions of dollars, it is an admitted hoax. The men responsible for creating the alien and the film have explained how they did it. There are photographs showing the evolution of the alien and concept drawings of it… and yet, there is a die-hard core (or could we say corps) of believers who simply will not accept that this is a hoax.

Normally, I would rewrite a press release rather than just cut and paste, but I think, given the credibility of the writer of this press release and his status in the investigation of the alien autopsy (and because today is Sunday and I want to watch a movie on cable), I’m going to let Philip Mantle explain what he knows. In his press release, he wrote (I will note that I did edit it slightly but left his British spellings intact):

For a number of days now a number of us have been have a debate on the alien autopsy analysis page (on Facebook) run by Colin Woolford. He made claims that Spyros Melaris (the man who led the team that faked the alien autopsy film) has 'handlers' and is being paid cheques, presumably by these handlers, to make up the story that he faked the alien autopsy film. Colin Woolford has also stated as a fact that the intelligence agencies (MIBS) are involved and it's all one big cover-up to hide the truth. That 'truth' according to Woolford is that the alien autopsy film is in fact real. For a couple of days now I have respectfully asked Woolford to show me his evidence that Spyros Melaris does indeed have 'handlers', that MIB etc. are involved. Woolford has wriggled and wriggled and continually kept trying to avoid answering my request by trying to change the subject. It simply did not work. You will not be surprised that Woolford was unable to provide any such evidence. I HAVE WON A MAJOR VICTORY HERE. To Spyros Melaris and all the others involved you can rest assured that Colin Woolford has nothing to offer and should simply be ignored. For those want the facts about my investigation into the alien autopsy film hoax you can of course find it in my book:


The facts of course, as fully presented in my book, prove that the alien autopsy film is a hoax beyond any reasonable doubt.
You can also look at his blog and website here, if you so desire:

At this point I probably should also mention that I covered the tale at length in Aliens Mysteries, Conspiracies and Cover-ups, published by Visible Ink and, of course, available on Amazon in hard copy and as an ebook. There are pictures to underscore the conclusion of hoax. Naturally, Philip was a help in assembling the photographic evidence. Don Ecker was also very helpful in refuting some of the data by the alleged cameraman.

For those interested in my book, here is the link to Amazon:


TheDimov said...

its all too easy with things like aliens and mysteries, there is such a core of people who want to desperately want to believe that they continuously get exploited, and all too easily. Its why I was so disgusted with the like of Tom, Don and co with BeWitness, there is just no moral integrity, no serious desire for the truth -- if there was we would have seen refunds, for starters. There are people who are simply ignorant or too willing to accept things too easily, and those all too keen to exploit that fact, but the worst thing to me is that there is no governing body that pulls people into line : it just blows my mind that the likes of Santilli, Maussaun, Tom Carey, Don Schmidt are not only free men but still cashing in, not even missing a step! I guess quite simply at the end of the day its up to the individual to learn to not be so ignorant, and to question everything, at depth. Until then this merry-go-round will continue and the same snake oil salesmen will be out there, taking full advantage.

Mr. Sweepy said...

The underlining problem is if dollars can be made off a false story, then this will continue. The truth is now and has been for sale. Why? because there are many people gullible for any story that perks their interest.

Then there are people like this writer who is looking for fame. He has a bloated opinion of his intellectual skills and cares little about the truth so long as he gets his pound of satisfaction.

I am 100 percent in agreement with you.

cda said...

The are a zillion believers in MJ-12, Gulf Breeze, Adamski, Aztec, the alien autopsy, the Trent photos, Apollo moon hoax, etc. etc. In fact there are a zillion believers in virtually anything you like (even a flat earth, or hollow earth to take two extreme examples).

It is all part of the great and varied world, and universe, we live in. Think how much poorer humanity would be without such people.

By the way, what about that, er, ET crash at Roswell.....?

starman said...

The Trent photos don't belong in a list of proven hoaxes, though Maury Island does.

albert said...

I'm disappointed with the sad state of affairs. I all but gave up trying to research certain questions on line because of the amount of BS that's out there. More technical or scientific fields seem to have a lot less BS. Once you move into the paranormal, well, good luck.

@cda you're certainly correct. Look how many people believe in religions in general, and fake 'religious' leaders in particular. They can motivate people to kill themselves and others by mere proclamation. Irrationality has infected everything.

Lest anyone think that phony UFO researchers are harmless, let me remind them that they take peoples -time- and -money- and some of their victims become so obsessed that it may affect their mental health.

Didn't someone publish a list of UFO hucksters and hoaxes? If not, someone should.

I'll close with a quote from someone not Mark Twain:

"It's easier to fool someone, than to convince them that they've been fooled."
. .. . .. --- ....

John Steiger said...

cda: Not only are the Trent photos not a proven hoax, but the Aztec crash circa March 1948 is also not a proven hoax. Nor is Aztec a proven crash for that matter.

Sugarraytaylor said...

I am feeling the same frustration as Kevin.

Over the weekend Don Ecker conducted a brilliant interview with Spyros on his Dark Matters show, which I highly recommend. During the interview Spyros revealed a couple of private gags that were included in the film (of course I knew about it being 100% a hoax but this was new information to me about the private joke)
During the part of the film known as the "Debris section" where we are shown the 6 fingered hand control panels, and the I-Beams based on Marcel Jrs testimony.
I already knew about the word "video" in the symbols, however I did not know about Spyros modelling them on his own made up language with most of the influence being taken from his Greek Heritage. This actually has new relevance after Tom Delonge's cringeworthy appearance on Joe Roagans show in which he said the symbols looked Greek because they had something to do with Atlantis, or something to that effect. That was pathetic at the time he said it, and it's even worse now.

Another gag was where the hand panels are being handled and the person moving them back and forth seemingly astonished at them morphing shape from one being smaller in one position, to them being the same size when placed side by side. Our friend let us in on the fact that this was a nod to something known as a "jasper effect" or something along those lines.
After the interview I went and pulled the video up on YouTube to watch the footage with this new knowledge and I really howled my Ass off.

I know I should've know better but I looked at the comments, good lord it was astonishing how many people were arguing over it's authenticity. The person who uploaded it put this gem in the description ;

"Originally shot in 1947 and RESTORED in 1995.

It's days like this where I am more and more convinced that this field will never go anywhere at all, and if anything all it ever does is go back on itself. Any "progress" is not due to new evidence or true investigation, it's just an illusion with more and more morons in the world who believe anything even when debunked 1000 times over.

Daniel Transit said...

TheDimov said...

'its all too easy with things like aliens and mysteries, there is such a core of people who want to desperately want to believe that they continuously get exploited, and all too easily...'

Mr. Sweepy! said...

'...there are many people gullible for any story that perks their interest...'

Both these posters appear to have the concept fixed rigidly into their minds that ALL people who pay money to witness anything potentially alien have made up their minds in advance of witnessing the relevant event/s that the thing in question is DEFINITELY ALIEN.

If the posters consider that the entire mass of people who paid money to buy a video of the alien autopsy case, or paid money to be at the BeWitness event were convinced in advance 'This Is Alien', then before making further opinions based on this view they are surely required to supply some evidence to support what they are putting across in their sweeping generalisations about audiences.

I was able to watch most of the BeWitness event. I did NOT think in advance of watching 'This will definitely be an alien.' I have no good reason to believe that the majority, let alone all of the others that watched were committed in advance to the expectation of a definite alien.

It is just stupid and insulting towards those that watched the event, including myself, to make this assumption about our reasons for viewing.

Why is it so easy for characters like TheDimov to get away with making totally evidence-free generalisations about large numbers of fellow human beings, who may take a different course to him, for a (likely) variety of reasons.

We are not all alike, TheDimov. We will never all be alike anywhere other than in your simple mind.

(Nor are you a qualified arbiter of who does or doesn't want refunds for events that they have attended)

KRandle said...

Sorry, John -

Aztec is a hoax. You can't point to one valid witness to the crash and there are several people who lived in the area in 1947 that say it never happened. I did invite Ramsey on my radio show but he declined... said he didn't want to promote the show but I wonder if there wasn't another reason for his failure to appear.

cda -

Not completely convinced that the Trent photos are a hoax... but there are some questions about the sighting that haven't been completely answered, and yes, I'm well aware of the latest study done on those photos and covered it all in The UFO Dossier, so you don't need to point me to that study.

Daniel -

I believe that there was enough information out there prior to the Alien Autopsy event and the BeWitness event to suggest there were some real problems with both of these. Yes, I looked at the information as it was presented because you just have to look, which, of course, doesn't make me gullible... nor does it make most of the others gullible. However, given the information that was available here, and on various other blogs and web sites, you should have been suspicious of these things. In fact, I told Tom Carey in the months prior to the presentation that it wasn't going to turn out well... just too many red flags.

John Steiger said...

Dr. Randle (Kevin]: I understand that you believe that Aztec is a hoax, and I cannot dispute your belief other than to state that I do not believe Aztec has been conclusively proven to be a hoax, at least by my standards. BUT I also admit that conclusive proof of Aztec has not yet been furnished - some 70 years ago this very month - and that such a lamentable state of affairs vis-a-vis this alleged “crash” is rather disconcerting ....

KRandle said...

John -

We do not have to prove it a hoax... proponents must prove it factual. Are there any credible first-hand witnesses and not someone who claimed to work for a company that didn't arrive until a year or two after the sighting? Are any newspaper articles about the event published in March 1948... I note that Roswell, Kecksburg and Shag Harbour all have many newspaper articles about them (NO, cda, this does not prove these cases as alien contact, only that there is a newspaper trail). Have you seen or read the various articles that suggest is was a hoax including Cahn's 1952 expose and McClelland's 1974 expose... or seen Coral Lorenzen's take on it.

The reason that no conclusive proof has been offered is because there is nothing to offer. It just didn't happen and we wouldn't be talking about it if not for Frank Scully's book.

John Steiger said...

Dr. Randle (Kevin): I agree that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of Aztec. The reason I am not closing the book on Aztec is the investigation and research of Scott Ramsey. While I am part-way down the trail behind Scott, I find myself at a stopping point where I am no longer proceeding, but not ready to retreat either. However, you are correct that the burden of proof on Aztec has not yet been met. I realize there are significant flaws with the Aztec case, and these must be overcome to establish acceptance of the Aztec's legitimacy AND they may not be able to be overcome, in which case your assertions would be correct.

P.S. I am the full way down thee trail you blazed for Roswell, only now you're not with me anymore. However, I intend to win you back on Roswell ... don't ask me how, just please keep an open mind!

Sugarraytaylor said...

Ever since the big reveal in Mexico there has been a tendency among those who paid to see this farce and those who were there in person. I have heard countless times from these people that "we didn't think it was going to be the reveal of an alien body".... I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. Those involved in the God damn thing all pushed it as such. Even when the exact words "alien" or "ET" weren't used, all of the usual narrative was heavily implied and that is undeniable. Don Schmitt used the same tactic himself, claiming that at no time did they say it was Alien or recovered from the Roswell crash....yet then start babbling on about how the body matched those described by witnesses from Roswell etc
It just shows you how much of an embarrassment this was, that not only are the people involved in such denial, but those who paid to see it are also in denial.

Mr. Sweepy said...


You may agree with this however I think there is a example of what should be done in UFOlogy. About 100 years ago, Albert Einstein went to great lengths to prove his theories about relativity. I don't profess to understand the details his ideas about gravidity, time, and all the other scientific terms he proofed. However what is important he presented a final paper to many scholars in the field of mathematics and other scientific studies. His work was reviewed and studied then validated. His work and theories was proof to be true by others.

The reason for mentioning this is Ufology is missing this same level of research and scrutiny. We have no real physical evidence in nearly all cases. The exception is photos and eye witness reports if those are considered valid. We have no dead aliens or real "metal" pieces from a flying vehicle. If this does exist the government has not stated so and I don't expect it to happen.

The point of this post is there should be a real panel of experts to decide what is credible or what is not. I will finish by saying I saw a big cylinder UFO in 2003 that was close, in daylight and wasn't a plane. However my thinking now, I know what I saw but this still not good enough to be considered as real evidence.

TheDimov said...

Dr Roger Leir collected a number of pieces of evidence that certainly could do with further scrutiny.

KRandle said...

TheDimov -

No, he didn't.

Anthony Mugan said...

I have every sympathy

I think you do provide a useful service in highlighting the problems with many claims that float around and in digging deeply into old cases.

The most serious efforts in recent years have focused on a few lines of research. One example the significant progress made in historical research / FOIA activities and it looks as if there needs to be a lot more done on that to bring developments within government and the intelligence community up to date.

Another example is attempts to use assumptions about how these things might be operating to give clues as to lines of research in physics that might be worth exploring...all highly speculative and probably best not to add to the woes of the various researchers by drawing too much attention to where their thinking has been coming from, but that could potentially end up being significant.

Actually most of the developments in recent years that are of relevance to the basic question we are considering have come from mainstream science with the Fermi Paradox getting more puzzling as time has gone on.

There doesn't seem to be a single location which pulls together the full range of serious developments whilst either ignoring or just occasionally debunking the drivel that infests the subject. Developments in astrobiology, convergent evolution, panspermia models, advanced propulsion research, the more serious end of psi research, historical research etc etc. would all be controversial but less irritating than charlatans and idiots.

cda said...

When is part 2, and maybe parts 3, 4 etc going to appear? Why do you now dislike so much of ufology? After all, it was, at one time, going to be THE THING to get our primitive and negative unscientific minds buzzing with excitement.

I am thinking of the good ole days, of course.

TheDimov said...

Kevin, I am intrigued to know why Dr Leir's findings weren't something of interest, do a blog on it, I'd love to read it! Because I've always thought he was onto something. Sometimes the thing moves or vanishes when they are doing an ultrascan for example, or the thing they find is supposedly not earth-made. I want to know your thoughts!

albert said...

@shaun taylor,
"...It's days like this where I am more and more convinced that this field will never go anywhere at all,..."

Amen.....but we live in the age of 'fake news'. There are no investigative reporters left in the MSM. People believe anything they see on Youtube or read on Facebook. There is little critical reporting, and critical thinking seems to have disappeared. Of course this field isn't going anywhere. If the MSM meat puppets laugh about it, who are we to take it seriously? Scientists are the worse offenders. Few are capable of stepping up and taking a stand for scientific curiosity. One need only look at their audience to understand why. And yet, the majority of Americans believe that there's something to this UFO thing.

Another thing that sticks in my craw is the conflation of the paranormal with UFOlogy. When you bring in alien abductions, crop circles, cryptozoology, and hordes of New Age fluff, you've taken 2 strikes before you even get to the plate. This from a man with wide ranging interest in some of those areas.

And then there's this: "Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program", NYT, DEC. 16, 2017. Interesting that the article is classified as "Politics" :)

. .. . .. --- ....

Adam S. said...

Meh, on one hand I would argue lot of fluff is put out there to dilute the more sobering/serious research that has been done, ie John Keel, Jacques Vallee. But on the other, fluff is put out there simply because fluff sells.

KRandle said...


Additional parts will appear when there is something new to say. I really don't need to cover MJ-12 again (until a new batch of documents appear), so this we be periodic as are my chasing footnotes articles.

Oh, and I didn't say I disliked it all that much, only that I was beginning to.

Unknown said...

If anyone is interested at this late date, my research shows that the Trent photos were hoaxed. I set out to use the photos themselves to prove by triangulation between the photos that the UFO was far away from the camera. I used the work of Joel Carpenter and that of Bruce Maccabee to arrive at a model layout of the scene. Things did not work out very well. I found that the lines of triangulation crossed directly at the electric wires and thus the UFO was a suspended model about six inches across and was about 16 to 17 feet from the camera. My work was published in UFO Truth e-zine issue 21, Sept.-Oct. 2016. I describe in the article how I was able by trial and error to basically replicate the photos. The editor was very hesitant to publish, but no one has refuted my work.

B. Timothy Pennington, PhD, Retired Chemist, Author of Science, Skeptics, and UFOs, pub. 2014.

Dr. Randle, your UFO work is, in my opinion, the most level-headed approach I have seen.