SUN 37 (Jan 1996)

Magazine Overview

Title: Skeptics UFO Newsletter
Issue: #37
Date: January 1996
Publisher: Philip J. Klass
Focus: Critical examination of UFO phenomena and claims.

Newly Discovered Anomalies Challenge "Alien Autopsy" Authenticity

This article delves into the controversy surrounding the "Alien Autopsy" film, questioning its authenticity. Clive Tobin, a cinema expert with over 20 years of experience in motion picture processing, has raised significant doubts. Tobin's suspicions were initially sparked by a short filmstrip shown on Fox TV, which he believed to be a copy. He identified subtle technical details suggesting the film was made using a Bell & Howell "C-printer," a technology not introduced until around 1960, or possibly an earlier JA-printer.

Tobin's findings were shared with Bob Shell, an "authenticity investigator" for the "Alien Autopsy" movie, who had previously believed the filmstrips provided by distributor Ray Santilli were samples of the original acquired from the alleged former military cameraman (SAC). Direct communication between Tobin and Shell ensued after SUN provided Shell with Tobin's article.

The article recounts the alleged cameraman's story as provided by Santilli. The SAC claims he was dispatched on June 2, 1947, to the Roswell Army Air Field, then driven to near Socorro, New Mexico, where he filmed a crashed saucer and its four occupants, three of whom were alive. He then spent three weeks filming debris at Wright Field (now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) and, in early July, filmed autopsies on two of the "freaks" in Ft. Worth. The narrative highlights a peculiar detail: the UFOnaut killed in the crash was allegedly kept "on ice" for a month until the second one died, with the third and fourth remaining alive.

According to the SAC's account, after filming, he had several hundred reels of film. He separated problem reels for later processing. The first batch was sent to Washington, and he processed the remainder. However, when he attempted to arrange for the collection of the final batch, Washington allegedly never came, nor did they arrange transportation. The SAC claims he called many times before giving up, and the footage remained with him. In May 1949, he was asked to film a third autopsy.

Santilli claims that in the spring of 1949, top Air Force/Pentagon officials selected the SAC to film the third autopsy in Washington. Curiously, they allegedly forgot that major portions of the first two autopsy films were missing because the SAC had retained them for "special processing." Consequently, no one thought to ask him to bring the earlier films. The article points out the implausibility that the SAC would not have brought the 1947 autopsy film rolls when he went to Washington.

Tobin's conclusion, based on the assumption that the filmstrips Santilli supplied are from the same footage, is that the autopsy films are copies made after the late 1950s, when the JA and C-printers became available. This raises numerous questions about the film's authenticity and the SAC's story.

Shell Challenges Tobin But Later Concedes He Might Be Right

Initially, Bob Shell, who was investigating the film for Santilli, expressed strong confidence in its authenticity. At an "Encounters Forum" on CompuServe in late August, following the Fox network's showing of "Alien Autopsy," Shell stated he had "lots of info that isn't public yet" and claimed a 95% scientific probability that the film was manufactured, exposed, and processed in 1947. He also claimed to possess a piece of the actual film.

However, in mid-November, Shell engaged in direct dialogue with Tobin. Shell initially challenged Tobin's conclusion, citing experts at Kodak and the George Eastman House Museum, as well as "old timers" who worked in the 1940s, who had examined his two filmstrips and pronounced them "original camera film." Shell stated that these experts concluded the film was "reversal processed, not a duplicate or print."

During their exchange, Tobin sent Shell a sample of film processed on a C-Printer for comparison. Barely a month later, on December 17, Shell posted a public memo on CompuServe admitting he was "disturbed and puzzled" because "every expert other than Mr. Tobin... is convinced that it is camera-original film." Shell acknowledged that if Tobin was correct, they would have to "go all the way back to square one on the authentication process."

Shell also raised questions about Santilli's initial claim of having received 22 reels of "release prints" and one reel of negative film, wondering if this was an assumption or information from the cameraman. He intended to address this with Santilli.

Who Were Shell's "Experts" Who Assessed The Film?

When asked by SUN to identify the "experts" who examined his filmstrips, Shell's response was vague. He stated they were the ones "FOX showed the filmstrips to, the experts that Phil Mantle [British UFO Research Assn.] showed them to, the experts TF-1 [French TV] brought in, those used by Italian, German, Rumanian, Hong Kong, etc. TV networks."

Tobin also questioned the filmstrips' sprocket holes. The Bell & Howell Filmo camera, common in the 1940s, required "double-perf" film. Curiously, both filmstrips provided by Santilli to Shell, and the one shown by Fox, had one edge torn off, making it impossible to determine if they were "single-perf" or "double-perf."

Shell Offers Two Possible Explanations For Missing Edges

In his December 17 memo, Shell acknowledged the torn edges were a key issue. He offered two explanations: either the film was damaged during projection or in the camera, or the side was intentionally torn off to hide the fact that it was "single-perf" film. SUN, however, doubts Santilli would resort to such fraud and suggests a more unusual explanation: extraterrestrial microbes that penetrated the camera during autopsies and consumed one edge of the film.

Shell also mentioned that "film scraps" provided to British TV producer John Purdy were "double-perf" and pronounced "camera-originals" by Purdy's experts. However, Shell had only a brief look at Purdy's film and noted that Purdy was unwilling to let him examine it at length.

In the wake of these discrepancies, Shell revised his probability estimate from 95% to "something like 80% or so" that the original film was manufactured, exposed, and processed prior to 1957, rather than 1947.

Santilli's "Double-Talk" About Authenticating His Film

Ray Santilli appeared on a Seattle talk show, where he acknowledged his company had "made some money" from the sale of TV rights and home videos, but insisted they were "not into any kind of profit" until the film was proven genuine. When asked why he hadn't accepted Eastman Kodak's offer to evaluate a sample, Santilli cited a lack of film, stating that film had been given to Fox, Bob Shell, English broadcasters, and French broadcasters, and that "very little left" would remain if more was distributed.

Santilli claimed he had acquired 22 rolls of film, which would total 2,200 feet. He also stated that some film was returned to the cameraman. When pressed by the host about whether he had done everything possible to get the film authenticated, Santilli replied that he had given it to broadcasters and asked them to investigate.

Eastman Kodak's Response To Santilli's Claim

SUN contacted Eastman Kodak's public affairs office and spoke with Jim Blamphin. Blamphin stated that the only film submitted to Kodak was a "two-inch section of solid white leader," which indicated manufacture dates of 1927, 1947, or 1967. Kodak's British affiliate had offered to conduct a detailed chemical analysis for $8,000 if Santilli provided a 10-inch strip of film, but they had not heard back from him.

Blamphin confirmed an earlier offer from Tony Amato, a Kodak movie film specialist, to test the Santilli film without charge if Shell provided a two-inch sample. Shell had initially agreed to provide this sample, but Santilli's financial partner, Volker Spielberg, reportedly refused, claiming ownership of the film. Spielberg had allegedly stored the original autopsy film in a Swiss vault.

SUN also noted that Santilli had claimed some film was returned to the cameraman, yet he had not sent a sample to Kodak for chemical analysis.

SUN Erred On The Vintage Of Autopsy Room Telephone

In a previous issue, SUN had reported that the wall-type telephone seen in the "autopsy room" of the Santilli films was a Type 500, introduced in 1956, which would have been proof of a hoax. However, upon closer examination of a filmstrip provided by Bob Shell, the telephone was identified as a Type 350, introduced around 1946-47. This corrected information was published in the Autumn 1947 issue of the Pacific Telephone Magazine.

However, the article points out a discrepancy: the Type 350 shown in the film does not have a coiled cord, unlike the one in the Santilli film. Research into telephone history revealed that coiled cords became standard equipment later. An advertisement from February 19, 1949, for Western Electric showed a Type 300 desk-set telephone without a coiled cord. A July 1953 National Geographic ad showed three phones, none with coiled cords.

Further examination of the coiled cord in the Santilli film revealed it appeared "baggy" and stretched. An advertisement by Koiled Kords Inc. from October 22, 1949, claimed their cords "always retracts, never gets baggy or loose no matter how often it is stretched." This suggests that the wall-phone and its coiled cord were many decades old, not new, when the film was shot, further casting doubt on its 1947 origin.

Hopkins Discovers "New" UFO Abduction Patterns

Budd Hopkins, a prominent figure in UFO abduction research, presented his discovery of a new pattern in abduction cases at the Fifth New Hampshire MUFON UFO Conference. This pattern involves UFOnauts "co-opting" their abductees, forcing them to assist with routine chores.

Hopkins cited the case of a petite woman from Connecticut who remembered being inside a UFO wearing a blue, skin-tight uniform. She was instructed telepathically and tasked with taking a terrified, paralyzed African-American man out of a car and leading him into the craft. She expressed distress about her role.

Another case described involved a woman who remembered being in a craft wearing a blue uniform. She was instructed to move naked, terrified humans from one room to another. She felt terrified and angry, fearing the humans' reactions to her.

Hopkins revealed that the "very first person I ever heard this from" was Linda Cortile, and this phenomenon could be called the "Linda Cortile Syndrome." Cortile had previously claimed she was "beamed up" from her Manhattan apartment to a UFO. Hopkins declined to provide details on Cortile's "co-option" for his forthcoming book, "Eagle's End: The Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abduction."

Hopkins Offers New Theory To Explain Childhood Abductions

Hopkins proposed a new hypothesis to explain UFO abductions occurring during childhood, before puberty. His earlier theory focused on obtaining ova and sperm for hybrid species creation. The new theory suggests that UFOnauts are studying human relationships by observing how individuals form connections from childhood.

He explained that his theory is based on cases where two individuals, typically of opposite sexes, meet as adults and find each other familiar. They recall each other's childhood appearance, even if they lived in different locations. Eventually, through hypnosis and normal recollection, they remember being abducted together as children and interacting, with the UFO occupants studying their relationship formation.

Hopkins reiterated that Linda Cortile's story was the first instance he heard of such repeated childhood abductions, adding that her tale "adds credibility and a very different story to her recollections."

In his closing remarks, Hopkins acknowledged that some individuals end up in mental hospitals due to abduction experiences reported to the wrong people, and that suicides have occurred. He advised those who believe they have suffered UFO abductions not to dwell on it constantly, as "life goes by."

Abduction Therapist Boylan Seeks To Reinstate License

The article reports on Richard J. Boylan, a prominent UFO abduction therapist, whose psychotherapist license was revoked by the California Board of Psychology in August 1995. Boylan, who founded the Academy of Controlled Close Encounter Therapists (ACCET) to train other therapists, claims to have experienced a UFO abduction himself.

The Psychology Board's action was prompted by complaints from three of Boylan's female patients. The board found Boylan guilty of "gross negligence" for inviting patient D.W. to his home in November 1992 for nude hot tubbing and giving D.W. a massage in a hotel room. Boylan also invited patient K.G. to his home in December 1991 for nude hot tubbing and bartered therapy for nude massages from K.G.

The Board concluded that Boylan's acts of inviting D.S. and K.G. to Harbin Hot Springs for nude therapy sessions constituted gross negligence. However, the Board did not conclude that Boylan had engaged in "sexual misconduct" with any of the three women.

Boylan provided SUN with a rebuttal, claiming he was a victim of those seeking to perpetuate a "UFO cover-up." He alleged that "engineers of the UFO Cover-Up" fear his data on UFO reality, extraterrestrial presence, secret U.S.-UFO manufacturing, and the SDI program, and are attempting to smear him.

Boylan had previously called SUN regarding an article in the September issue that might have been construed as indicating he offered therapy for "abductees," which he denied.

Congressman Schiff Continues His Roswell/GAO Cover-Up

Congressman Steven Schiff of New Mexico is criticized for allegedly "stonewalling" SUN's request for information regarding the General Accounting Office (GAO) report on the "Roswell Incident." Despite multiple requests, Schiff had not provided a copy of the initial draft of the GAO report or a list of suggested changes.

SUN obtained a copy of the initial draft from a confidential source. The GAO had verbally informed Schiff that its investigators could not find any documents indicating a UFO crash near Roswell in 1947, contradicting claims Schiff had previously voiced. When the GAO published its final report, it added a new paragraph emphasizing documents that GAO could not find.

The initial GAO report stated that RAAF administrative records and outgoing messages for the period were destroyed "without proper authority." However, the Chief Archivist of the National Personnel Records Center challenged this, citing Air Force Manual 181-5 regarding record disposal. The GAO subsequently amended its final report to state that its "review of records control forms showing the destruction of other records--including outgoing RAAF messages for 1950--supports the Chief Archivist's viewpoint."

The final report also added a paragraph noting that the search for government records was complicated by missing documents, with no explanation. The article speculates that Schiff may not have supplied SUN with his suggested changes to the GAO's first draft because his only file copy was "destroyed without proper authority."

More Evidence Shows Maj. Marcel Prone To Making Spurious Claims

Roswell researcher Robert G. Todd has uncovered evidence suggesting that Maj. Jesse Marcel, a key figure in the Roswell Incident, was prone to telling "tall tales" in his later years. This is based on a 1979 tape-recorded interview with Robert Pratt of the National Enquirer, a transcript of which was published in Karl Pflock's "Roswell In Perspective."

According to the article, Marcel falsely claimed he had prepared the statement President Truman read on the radio announcing the USSR's first atomic bomb test. Other spurious claims revealed include Marcel's false claim of having a degree in nuclear physics.

Todd's study of Marcel's military records revealed discrepancies. Marcel claimed he was a private pilot with 3,000 flight hours before entering the service, a claim that would logically make him a candidate for military pilot training. However, his commission application listed only amateur radio and photography hobbies, with no mention of extensive pilot experience.

Furthermore, Marcel claimed he received five Air Medals for shooting down five enemy aircraft and had combat experience as a pilot, bombardier, and waist-gunner. Marcel's military record shows only two Air Medals, and no training as a gunner, bombardier, or military pilot. Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr. had stated that his father, having received radar training, should have recognized a balloon-borne radar reflector. Marcel's military record shows he took a three-week course in airborne radar, focusing on its use for bombing and navigation, not weather balloon tracking.

Todd's report, titled "The KowPflop Quarterly," is available for $2.00 from Robert G. Todd at 2528 Belmont Ave., Ardmore, Pa. 19003-2617.

Short Shrift: President Reveals Interest In Crashed Saucers

During a recent visit to Ireland, President Clinton publicly responded to a letter from a 13-year-old boy named Ryan who asked about the Roswell Incident. Clinton stated, "No, as far as I know, an alien spacecraft did not crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. And Ryan, if the United States Air Force did recover alien bodies, they didn't tell me about it either. And I want to know."

The newsletter humorously suggests a gift for Hilary Rodham: a "Roswell Alien in a Chamber" replica, priced at $1,695.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Skeptics UFO Newsletter consistently adopts a critical and skeptical stance towards UFO claims. The primary themes explored in this issue include the rigorous examination of evidence, the debunking of alleged UFO phenomena through scientific and technical analysis, and the questioning of witness credibility and official narratives. The newsletter prioritizes factual investigation over sensationalism, often highlighting discrepancies, inconsistencies, and potential hoaxes within the UFO community. The editorial stance is clearly one of skepticism, aiming to provide a rational counterpoint to widely accepted or sensationalized UFO stories, particularly focusing on the "Alien Autopsy" film and the Roswell Incident. The newsletter also touches upon psychological aspects of abduction claims and the legal ramifications for therapists in the field.