Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Another Look at "The Alien Autopsy Film"

By Wendelle Stevens

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary confusion about that Santili autopsy film, and there is no reason for it, if one was to look at the realities.

When we screened the copy autopsy footage at our International UFO Congress that first year, when it came out and was being questioned by everybody, A man who offered credentials purporting to show that he was a government man from NRC, approached Graham Birdsall from England, publisher of the slick UFO Magazine out of Leeds, in England, and told him that the film was a fake produced by opportunists who had mutilated the body of a 12 year old dead girl from Dallas, for that film.

Evidently that man was unaware of the second autopsy film, also filmed by the same cameraman, of another identical cadaver that did not have the severe wounds to the right leg and wrist, now requiring the mutilation of a PAIR of identical twins, if that story was the case. Of course that was the real falsehood, deliberately perpetrated by a man claiming he was from a government agency.

Let us not forget that the specimen of original film of that autopsey sequence, tested by Robert Shell, Editor of a popular American Photography Magazine, proved that the film was manufactured by Kodak in 1947, was bought in bulk by the U. S. Government and was used within 4 months of its manufacture. The actual photographer described the site of the UFO recovery, its exact location and the events of the time when the U. S. Army had closed off the area of the impact and moved all residents in
the area within site of the residue to motels and away from the scene. He described these details to Michael Hesemann, who came over here from Germany, made up a team consisting of myself, Ted Loman and his crew and my daughter Cece Stevens, and we went over to the scene and worked the site and area for 3 days confirming the evidence we had.

That recovery was _not_ from the Roswell crash as seems to be popularly believed, but was from the first of such crashes a month earlier on 1 June 1947, 7.2 miles west of Soccoro. There were 4 living survivors at the scene when the Army team and photographer arrived. A general, heading the team from Washington, accompanied by the Army photographer, upon hearing that the occupants had never let go of the black boxes they clutched closely to their breasts, ordered a sentry to bring him one of the boxes.

The sentry went over and tried to take the box from the injured one. It would not let go, and the sentry bashed it in the head and took the box. That was the one autopsied in the film shown by FOX TV. The occupants were all taken away, supposedly to White Sands, and the wreckage was also recovered by the White Sands recovery team.

The second one, also autopsied a short time later was also filmed by the same photographer.

To put Michael Hesseman down for his role in this is a disgrace, as he is the only one I know of who really went there and did the spadework. I was with him. I know this was strictly real, and there is no doubt about it in my mind.

The real 16mm film was so brittle from improper storage that it could not be run through a projector, and had to be transferred to video tape frame by frame to get what we all worked with.

To put this film down, in my view, reflects a certain amount of ignorance of the true facts.

1 comment :

  1. Many thanks for coming to help rescue this film. I have been through the AA Digitised version, read the body language and researched the arguments put up by our esteemed colleagues. (ha!)I still havent found a single fact against this film, aside from the excited Santilli working off the Film Cannister Labels which couldnt be verified as the film was in such bad condition.
    Please keep battling, we are on the sidelines egging you on all the way.


Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW