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 Flying Saucer, 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 Roswell Incident," 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). New Mexico, 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- London: "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 little green men 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 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER • 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.