Investigative Files

Men Autopsy' Hoax

t keeps going and going and. . . . UFO hoaxes, both directly and indi- autopsy" film was bound to turn up. The Roswell crashed-saucer myth rectly related to Roswell, have since pro- That predictability, together with a Ihas been given renewed impetus by liferated. For example, a 1949 science fic- lack of established historical record for a controversial television program tion movie, The , produced the bizarre film, is indicative of a hoax. "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?" that by Mikel Conrad, purported to contain So is the anonymity of the cameraman. purports to depict the autopsy of a fly- scenes of a captured spacecraft; an actor But the strongest argument against ing saucer occupant. The "documen- hired by Conrad actually posed as an FBI authenticity stems from what really tary," promoted by a British marketing agent and swore the claim was true. In crashed at Roswell in 1947. According agency that formerly handled Walt 1950, writer Frank Scully reported in his to recently released Air Force files, the Disney products, was aired August 28, book Behind the Flying Saucers that the wreckage actually came from a bal- and September 4, 1995, on the Fox United States government had in its pos- loon-borne array of radar reflectors and television network. Skeptics, as well as session no fewer than three Venusian monitoring equipment launched as many UFOIogists, quickly branded the spaceships, together with the bodies of part of the secret Project Mogul and film used in the program a hoax. their humanoid occupants. Scully, who intended to monitor acoustic emis- "The ," as it is was also a Variety magazine columnist, sions from anticipated Soviet nuclear known, is described in several contro- was fed the story by two confidence men tests. In fact, materials from the device versial books, including one of that title who had hoped to sell a petroleum-locat- match contemporary descriptions of by Charles Berlitz and William L. ing device allegedly based on alien tech- the debris (foiled paper, sticks, and Moore. Reportedly, in early July 1947, a nology. Other crash-retrieval stories fol- tape) given by rancher Brazel's children flying saucer crashed on the ranch prop- lowed, as did various photographs of and others (Berlitz and Moore 1980; erty of William Brazel near Roswell, space aliens living and dead: One grue- Thomas 1995). , and was subsequently some photo portrayed the pilot of a small Interestingly, the film failed to agree retrieved by the United States govern- plane, his aviator's glasses still visible in with earlier purported eyewitness testi- ment (Berlitz and Moore 1980). Over the picture (Clark 1993). mony about the alleged autopsy. For the years, numerous rumors, urban leg- Among recent Roswell hoaxes was example, multiple medical informants ends, and outright hoaxes have claimed the MJ-12 fiasco, in which supposed described the Roswell creatures as lack- that saucer wreckage and the remains of top secret government documents— ing ears and having only four fingers its humanoid occupants were stored at a including an alleged briefing paper for with no thumb (Berlitz and Moore secret facility—e.g., a (nonexistent) President Eisenhower and an executive 1980), whereas the autopsy film depicts "Hangar 18" at Wright Patterson Air order from President Truman—cor- a creature with small ears and five fin- Force Base—and that the small corpses roborated the Roswell crash. Unfor- gers in addition to a thumb. Ergo, were autopsied at that or another site tunately, document experts readily either the previous informants are (Berlitz and Moore 1980; Stringfield exposed the papers as inept forgeries hoaxers, or the film is a hoax, or both. 1977). [See the SI Special Report on (Nickell and Fischer 1990). Although the film was supposedly Roswell by Philip J. Klass. in this issue.] Sooner or later, a Roswell "alien authenticated by Kodak, only the

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995 17 the cranial area being removed: ' This is a structure that must be the brain, if it is a human being. It looks like no brain that I have ever seen, whether it is a brain filled with a tumor, a brain that has been radiated, a brain that has been traumatized and is hemorragic. . . ." (Wecht 1995). Much more criti- cal was the assessment of nationally known pathologist Dominick Demaio who described the autopsy on televi- sion's "American Journal" (1995): "I would say it's a lot of bull." Houston pathologist Ed Uthman (1995) was also bothered by the unre- alistic viscera, stating: "The most implausible thing of all is that the 'alien' just had amorphous lumps of tis- sue in 'her' body cavities. I cannot fath- leader tape and a single frame were any United States government infor- om that an alien who had external submitted for examination, not the mation on UFOs and alien intelli- organs so much like ours could not entire footage. In fact, a Kodak gence) stated "up front and unequivo- have some sort of definitive structural spokesman told the Sunday Times of cally there is no (zero!!!) doubt in my organs internally." As well, "the prosec- : "There is no way I could mind that this film is a fraud" (1995). tors did not make an attempt to authenticate this. 1 saw an image on Even arch Roswell promoter Stanton T arrange the organs for demonstration the print. Sure it could be old film, but Friedman said: "I saw nothing to indi- for the camera." Uthman also observed it doesn't mean it is what the aliens cate the footage came from the Roswell that there was no body block, a basic were filmed on." incident, or any other UFO incident piece of equipment used to prop up the Various objections to the film's for that matter" ("Alien or Fake?" trunk for examination and the head for authenticity came from journalists, 1995). brain removal. He also pointed out UFO researchers, and scientists who Still other critics found many that "die prosector used scissors like a viewed the film. They noted that it inconsistencies and suspicious ele- tailor, not like a pathologist or sur- bore a bogus, non-military codemark ments in the alleged autopsy. For geon" (pathologists and surgeons place ("Restricted access, AOl classifica- example, in one scene the "doctors" the middle or ring finger in the bottom tion") that disappeared after it was crit- wore white, hooded anti-contamina- scissors hole and use the forefinger to icized; that the anonymous photogra- tion suits that could have been neither steady the scissors near the blades). pher's alleged military status had not for protection from radiation (else- Uthman further noted that "the initial been verified; and that the injuries sus- where the personnel are examining an cuts in the skin were made a little too tained by the extraterrestrial were alien body without such suits), nor for Hollywood-like, too gingerly, like inconsistent with an air crash. On the protection from the odor of decay nor operating on a living patient" whereas basis of such objections, an article in from unknown bacteria or viruses autopsy incisions are made faster and the Sunday Times of London advised: (either would have required some type deeper. Uthman faulted the film for "RELAX. The have of breathing apparatus). Thus it lacking what he aptly termed "techni- not landed. A much-hyped film pur- appears that the outfits served no pur- cal verisimilitude." porting to prove that aliens had arrived pose except to conceal the "doctors'" The degree of realism in the film on earth is a hoax" (Chittenden 1995). identities. has been debated, even by those who Similar opinions on the film came American pathologists offered still believe the film is a hoax. Some, like even from prominent Roswell-crash more negative observations. Cyril Kent Jeffrey (1995), thought the partisans: Kent Jeffrey, an associate of Wecht, former president of the autopsy was done on a specially altered the Center for UFO Studies and National Association of Forensic human corpse. On the other hand, author of the "Roswell Declaration" (a Pathologists, seemed credulous but many—including movie special effects call for an executive order to declassify described the viscera in terms that experts—believed a dummy had been might apply to supermarket meat used. One suspicious point in that Joe Nickel! is Senior Research Fellow at scraps and sponges: "I cannot relate regard was that significant close-up CSICOP. This is his inaugural Investi- these structures to abdominal con- views of the creature's internal organs gative Files column. texts." Again, he said about contents of were consistently out of focus ("Alien

18 • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995 or Fake?" 1995). "American Journal" (1995) also fea- tured a special effects expert who doubted the film's authenticity and demonstrated how the autopsy "inci- sions"—which left a line of "blood" as the scalpel was drawn across the alien's skin—could easily have been faked. (The secret went unexplained but probably consisted of a tube fastened to the far side of the blade.) In contrast to the somewhat credu- lous response of a Hollywood special effects filmmaker on the Fox program, British expert Cliff Wallace of Creature Effects provided the following assess- ment:

None of us were of the opinion that Either way the processes involved are we were watching a real alien autop- fakery. Television executives have a fairly complicated and require a high sy, or an autopsy on a mutated responsibility not to confuse programs level of specialized knowledge. human which has also been suggest- designed for entertainment with news ed. We all agreed that what we were documentaries." seeing was a very good fake body, a Another expert, Trey Stokes—a large proportion of which had been Hollywood special effects "motion based on a lifecast. Although the References designer" whose film credits include nature of the film obscured many of Alien or fake? 1995. Sheffield Star (England). the things we had hoped to see, we The Abyss, The Blob, Robocop Two, August 18. felt that the general posture and Batman Returns, Gremlins II, Tales "American Journal," 1995. September 6. weighting of the corpse was incor- from the Crypt, and many others—pro- Berlitz, Charles, and William L. Moore. 1980. The Roswell Incident. New York.' Grosset and rect for a body in a prone position vided an independent analysis at Dunlap. and had more in common with a CSlCOP's request. Interestingly, Chittenden, Maurice. 1995. Film that 'proves' cast that had been taken in an Stokes's critique also indicated that the aliens visited Earth is a hoax, the Sunday upright position. Times of London, July 30. alien figure was a dummy cast in an We did notice evidence of a pos- Clark, Jerome. 1993. "UFO Hoaxes." In Encyclo- upright position. He further noted sible molding scam line down an pedia of Hoaxes, cd. by Gordon Stein, pp. arm in one segment of the film but that it seemed lightweight and "rub- 267-278. Detroit: Gale Research. Jeffrey, Kent. 1995. Bulletin 2: The purported were generally surprised that there bery," that it therefore moved unnatu- 1947 Roswell film, Internet. May 26. rally when handled, especially in one was little other evidence of seaming Kurtz, Paul. 1995. Quoted in CSICOP press which suggests a high degree of shot in which "the shoulder and upper release, "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?" workmanship. arm actually are floating rigidly above film a hoax concludes scientific organization. April 25. We felt that the filming was done the table surface, rather than sagging in such a way as to obscure details Nickell. Joe, and John F. Fischer. 1990. The back against it" as would be expected crashed-saucer forgeries. International UFO rather than highlight them and that (Stokes 1995). Reporter, March/April 1990. pp. 4-12. many of the pans of the autopsy that CSICOP staffers (Executive Direc- Stokes. Trey. 1995. Personal communication. would have been difficult to fake, for August 29-31. tor , SKEIT1CAL INQUIRER example the folding back of the chest Stringfield. Leonard. H. 1977. Situation Red: The flaps, were avoided, as was anything Assistant Editor Tom Genoni, Jr., and UFO Siege. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. but the most cursory of limb move- I) monitored developments in the case. pp. 84. 177-179. Thomas, Dave. 1995. The Roswell incident and ment. We were also pretty uncon- Before the film aired, CSICOP issued a vinced by the lone removal sequence. Project Mogul. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 19(4) press release, briefly summarizing the (July-August): pp. 15-18. In our opinion the insides of the evidence against authenticity and Urhman, Ed. 1995. "Fox's 'Alien Autopsy': A creature did not bear much relation quoting CSICOP Chairman Paul Pathologist's View," Usenet, sci.med.pathol- to the exterior where muscle and ogy. September 15. bone shapes can be easily discerned. Kurtz as stating: "The Roswell myth Wallace. Cliff. 1995. Letter to Union Pictures, We all agreed that the filming of the should be permitted to the a deserved August 3. quoted in Wallace's letter to sequence would require either the death. Whether or not we are alone in Graham Birdsall. UFO Magazine. August 16. quoted on ParaNet. August 22. use of two separate bodies, one with the universe will have to be decided on Wecht. Cyril. 1995. Quoted on "Alien Autopsy: chest open, one with chest closed, or the basis of better evidence than that Fact or fiction?" Fox Network. August 28 significant redressing of one mortal. provided by the latest bit of Roswell and September 4.

SKEPTICAL. INQUIRER • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995 19