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 -> Jan -> Shell Responds to Chapman's 'Strange' Article

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: RSchatte@aol.com
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:26:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 17:15:12 -0500
Subject: Shell Responds to Chapman's 'Strange' Article


---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	76750.2717@CompuServe.COM (BOB SHELL)
To:	BlindCopyReceiver@, @
Date: 97-01-02 13:54:47 EST

Hello All,

Please post this far and wide since I have no way of knowing if Strange magazine
will print it.  Many of you have seen by now the article called "Dissecting the
Alien Autopsy Film" by Douglas Chapman in Strange.  Since I am mentioned in the
article, I'd like to correct some of the information given there.

First of all, let me congratulate Mr. Chapman for even attempting to clear up
this murky subject.  It is a difficult one to follow, even for someone who has
been on the inside.  Mr. Chapman has obviously tried hard to get his facts
correct and do a good analysis of this topic in limited space.  Overall, he
has done well.

Claims by Ed Stewart and others that only Berlyn Brixner photographed the
Trinity atomic test have been shown to be incorrect.  Brixner was one of four
_civilian_ photographers.  However, there may have been military photographers
as well unknown to Brixner and the other civilians.  "Jack" does not say in his
story that he photographed the Trinity test, just "Trinity".  There were many
photographs taken of the site both before and after the test.  "Jack" maintains
that he shot aerial photos, and, in fact, aerial photos were taken, although no
one today seems to know just who took them. They were certainly not shot by
Brixner or any of the other civilians, and must have come from military
cameramen.

The article states: "Seven stills from the Roswell Autopsy film of the "first
autopsy" were shown as slides in San Marino, Italy, on May 20, 1995.....in
showings not open to the general public."  Actually, what is referred to here is
the still images from the _second_ autopsy, which is the autopsy used by Bob
Kiviat in his FOX specials and used by all of the worldwide TV networks in their
programs. The second autopsy shows the creature with the leg injury. It is
important to clear this up, since there are two different autopsies on film
clearly identified as number one and number two, and filmed on different days
according to "Jack".

The only images from the first autopsy which have been shown are still images on
video tape apparently recorded from a TV screen with the VCR set on "still".
This video was made at my request and I showed it during 1995 at several UFO
conferences in open sessions. While I do not have permission to make copies for
anyone, I am happy to show these stills to any serious researcher who wants to
come to me, or meet me at a convenient location during my travels.  These still
images were created at my request from a video of the first autopsy to
demonstrate the fact that there really are, in fact, two separate autopsy films.
These stills have not been circulated on the Internet, and have not appeared in
print (yet).

I was sad to see the curly telephone cord brought up again, since it has been
conclusively proven that such cords did exist in 1947.  Even Phil Klass now
agrees that this is the case.

The film is said to show lack of scratches.  How can anyone know this since they
have only seen video from the film, and Ray Santilli says this was enhanced?
Lack of scratches would prove nothing one way or another anyway, since it
depends on storage conditions and how often the film is projected.

I am identified in the story as "... a consultant to Kodak and the FBI named Bob
Shell."  I should point out that since I became openly associated with research
on this film my "friends" at the FBI have been unwilling to take or return phone
calls from me, so it appears that any future consulting work for them has been
nixed by this project.  I am a photographic consultant to a number of
photographic companies, and this has not changed, but I do not divulge client's
names, so saying that I am a consultant to Kodak is without basis.  I have done
no chemical tests on any of the film, and have not identified it as Cine Super
XX.  While the original may have been filmed on Super XX film, what I have been
given is portions of copy film, not camera original, and it certainly is NOT
Super XX.  The film base does appear to be an earlier type of acetate
discontinued in 1957.  No one has ever claimed that the film sat in "Jack's"
posession undeveloped since 1947.  The film was, according to "Jack", processed
right away.

Where am I in my research?  I have had the film looked at in detail by a number
of medical professionals, and the great majority of them have said that this is
a real autopsy/dissection of something that was alive not too long before the
procedure or kept in cold storage.  They do not think it is a special effects
dummy.  Indeed, if it was actually filmed prior to 1957, as seems to be the
case, this is a ridiculous idea.  Special effects were just not very
sophisticated in those days.  As a matter of fact, I have been carefully
watching recent films done by the best special effects people around the world,
and have yet to see anything with the sustained gritty reality of this film. I
think when special effects people say they could do it, it is just
hyper-inflated ego talking.

Suggestions that these are deformed humans or results of genetic or radiation
experiments gone wrong show a complete lack of understanding of biology and
genetics.  Again, such suggestions just do not hold up.

So, treating the film separately from all the peripheral stuff attached to it, I
do think it is real film of the dissection of non-human humanoids of unknown
origin.  I think the UFO community has done itself a serious disservice by
not paying more attention to this film and simply dismissing it as a fraud.

Bob Shell