Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Re: Autopsy Cameraman photos

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Steven Kaeser <skaeser@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:24:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:55:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Autopsy Cameraman photos

>From: "SyntaX" <wsawers@ihug.co.nz>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Autopsy Cameraman photos
>Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:41:03 +1300

>As I understand it, the genitalia were, in most versions scrambled so
>as not to offend the delicate American publics morale ;-). The
>version we saw in New Zealand didn't have this scrambling, and apart
>from what _looks_ like a verticle slit,it  is IMO nothing more than a
>verticle shadow. If this is the case, then it leaves me with the
>conclusion that the creature is asexual (without sex organs at all.
>Which can open up a whole new area of speculation. Possibilities of
>clones, wokers, non-reproducing colonisers etc spring to mind. The
>imagination can go wild????
>
>Has anyone else whom has seen the unedited version share my opinion.
>I think this area could be vital. Not prove whether it's a SFX,
>(which is another question) but if it is as theorised by others as an
>unusually deformed hunan being, it does seem to make it harder to
>imagine all these defects _including_ the lack of   genitalia
>occuring in the one human ?

To the best of my knowledge, the only version that was scrambled was the
version shown by FOX (three times over a six month period).  The Vidmark
video of that program included the uncut video they had purchased from
Santilli, without the scrambling, at the end of the tape.  There were
several other pirated versions also being sold in the U.S. there were also
un-modified.

Descriptions of the "First Autopsy" seem to indicate that there are some
very large differences between the creatures "plumbing" and that of a
human.  If the two videos appear to be of the same type of creature, then
the "deformed human" theory becomes very strained.

>I also have heard there are three films. One quite bad quality inside
>a tent at the crash site. This purportedly shows the crashed wreck,
>but I'm not sure about that part. It was filmed in a tent though,
>which supports the cameramans staement that he only had the bad
>quality film to work with.

I believe there are actually five different sequences that have been edited
together by Ray and his partners.  The "Second Autopsy", "Debris Sequence",
and the "Short Tent Sequence" were all sold by Ray on his video and rights
for their broadcast were also sold to Kiviat and others.  The "First
Autopsy" and what is called the "Long Tent Sequence" have not been released
for distribution, and only the "Long Tent Sequence" has been shown in
public.  The "First Autopsy" has been seen in private by a handful of
researchers.

The "Short Tent Sequence" was sent to Kiviat, who allegedly complained that
he knew there was a much better version available.  It is so dark that it
is hard to make anything out, and he decided to ignore it in the first
production.  My understanding is that it will be a part of any update to
his program, and should prove to be quite interesting.  A few images from
that can be found at http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ , along with a few
enhancements that were performed.

>I think it is important that we remember that the film/vid we have
>seen are edited together from the film the cameraman said "_needed
>work_", for various reasons, including, over-exposure, difficult
>focusing, lighting and generally not up to the standard to be sent on
>immediately with the rest of the film. Who's to say the parts you
>think are missing were  OK without the above flaws and sent on  to
>whoever contracted him to do the film in the first place, along with
>the rest of the _acceptable_ film. Hence the lack of continuity in
>parts.

If you can find a copy of the original video sold by Ray, you will see the
film segments individually, and not edited together.  Ray was also
convinced to include an image of the film box labels in between the
segments, which shows how they were identified.

The cameraman allegedly forwarded film that did not need special processing
and held back those he wanted to do himself.  It can be argued that the
hoaxers simply left out sequences that would have been too difficult to
fake convincingly, or even decided to cut them out and never let them see
the light of day because they failed to look convincing.  I'm primarily
thinking of the removal of the rib cage.

It's quite apparent that the "pathologists" knew exactly what they were
doing throughout most of the proceedure.  They rarely took time to examine
what they were cutting into, and it is obvious to me that they weren't
performing an exploratory examination of a completely new and unknown
"creature".

It also appears that the film record is being made to simply document the
proceedure, not to document the evidence.  There is some indication that a
recorded sound track was also made, but that is (of course) unavailable.

Take care,

Steve