From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:59:18 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 07:59:53 -0400 Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy And Philip Mantle >From: Edward Gehrman <egehrman.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:10:44 -0700 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy And Philip Mantle >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers - <ufo-updates-list.nul> >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Alien Autopsy And Philip Mantle >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 07:23:47 -0400 >>Source: Kevin Randle's A Different Perspective >>Alien Autopsy And Philip Mantle >>Philip Mantle, Roswell Alien Autopsy published by >>RoswellBooks.com, Edinburg, Texas, 293 pages with an index. >Kevin, EBK, List, >Philip and I are friends, but he's mistaken about the AA. >The UFO community has missed a great chance to understand the >UFO phenomenon by studying the AA and discussing the >implications of the footage. >Only a few researchers have viewed the uncut footage or tried to >figure out the significance of the Socorro crash site. >Everyone refuses to listen to Dr Leir and his insistence that >the footage is of a real creature. >How and why did John Humphrey, a left hander, play the part of a >right handed surgeon and why did he and Spyros show the brain >being removed from the rear when it was obviously removed from >the front? >These types of mistakes are ingored or overlooked in Philip's >research and by the vast majority of other UFO researchers. >And how did Ray Santilli describe and give directions to >a dry lake with burned vegetation and rocks, covered with a >strange blue melted material, eventually identified as >cristobalite? He has never been to Socorro. >These are only a few of the unanswered questions. >I think it's time for folks to take another look at the uncut >footage and the evidence that it is hoaxed. There are many dead >ends in Ufology, but the AA isn't one of them. Ed, List, All Let's see, Ray Santilli said that the "tent" autopsy footage was either faked by his friends as a joke or an attempted recreation of the footage because the original was too muddy, dirty, or dark to be aired. Which version do you believe and don't both of them lead to the single conclusion that it is faked? If there was original tent footage, as suggested by Santilli, that film, although useless for broadcast would have forensic value but none of it has ever been submitted for testing which leads to a single conclusion of fake. We learn, now, that the hospital footage was also staged... but wait, a few frames of the real autopsy were cut into the admittedly fake autopsy. We just have to figure out which parts are faked and which are real. Santilli says that there were only about four minutes of footage that was useful so he faked the rest. In the tent debris footage, one of the I-beams has the word "video" on it... and there is a Greek word for freedom on it. What are the odds that alien writing would produce two terrestrial words? The first cameraman statement was filled with British terms and when that was pointed out it was changed. Bob Shell claimed that he had retyped the transcript to remove the offending British words (which is not to suggest the British are offensive, only that the terminology used was not that an American would use) without benefit of hearing the tape. Bob Shell is currently in prison for an unrelated matter, but that does not speak well of his credibility. Santilli supplied the name of the cameraman, but when it was proven that no cameraman by that name had worked the projects he claimed, Santilli said that he had invented the name as a red herring. Let's recap... Santilli said the original tent autopsy was a fake. He said that most of the hospital morgue footage was faked. He submitted a faked interview with the alleged cameraman. He showed people some of the debris from the tent footage in the trunk (okay, boot) of his car... well this debris is not in the film, but it is some of it that was produced for that purpose. We have the names of those who played the various roles, and there are drawings and photographs of the process. We have forensic specialists who say that the alien bodies show the muscles of a person standing rather than a body at rest. The wound on the leg is explained. The autopsy was not conducted with the rules and regulations in place at the time for a military autopsy... I can go on but what's the point. At the far end of the spectrum, you say Roger Leir said the autopsy is of a real creature... which parts, since Santilli has said that the autopsy is mostly faked? You ask how Santilli could describe a real place near Socorro when he had never been there, but don't mention all the others, such as Michael Hesemann, who have been there. Santilli has blocked every attempt to forensically study the film, which would go a long way to establishing it's authenticity and has all sorts of excuses for this failure. Of course, if he knows that it's fake, then the last thing he wants is any independent testing. Instead, we are asked to accept this as real because Santilli described a real place near Socorro, John Humphreys is left- handed and Roger Leir thinks the body is real. At what point do you realize the problem isn't that we all reject the autopsy (because of all the admissions of fakery involved), but your continued drumbeat that it is real... despite the deplorable lack of evidence on your side. Kevin Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp