Tuesday, June 21, 2005

I think a truly definitive explanation for the Roswell incident is finally within our grasp.

Investigator/author Nick Redfern's hypothesis, presented in his new book and in "UFO Review," strongly suggests the military's varied official "explanations" are hiding a deplorable -- if terrestrial -- secret. If he's right, and recent activity on the UFO UpDates mailing list indicates he just might be, then the Roswell mythos falls into a Cold War context as momentous (and chilling) as any "X-Files" premise.





Redfern's book, luridly but aptly titled "Body Snatchers in the Desert," has just been published by Paraview Pocket Books. Aside from suggesting that the Air Force is hiding a legacy of grisly human experimentation, "Body Snatchers" adds an unexpected dose of credibility to the infamous "alien autopsy" footage, proposing that the "alien" is actually a deformed adolescent girl killed in a radiation exposure experiment.

42 comments:

Dante Rosati said...

the special effects doll/prop in the autopsy film is supposed to be an irradiated adolescent girl from evil government experiments?

no wonder noone takes UFO research (and researchers) seriously!

this is really a new high (low?) in humor, there's sure gonna be some fun times on UFO Updates! Yi-haw!

Mac said...

I'm not sure what's funny here. This is a very real story about very real human beings tortured to death in Nazi-esque experiments.

Dante Rosati said...

c'mon Mac- that "autopsy" footage is hilarious, and now someone's suggesting that the hollywood prop is a nuked girl? You dont see the humor?

if our esteemed (NOT) government has been conducting other nazi-esque programs besides MKUltra and the Iraq war, then sure lets unmask them and add them to the long long list (see Chomsky's research if you want to get depressed).

If people who are interested in this kind of research want to be taken seriously, then they should probably avoid sillyness like claiming that hoaxed alien movies are part of the evidence!

Mac said...

There's compelling circumstantial evidence suggesting the "alien" is a human with a genetic disorder, and that the footage has existed since at least the 1960s. I realize it's very fashionable to assume it's a hoax. But where is the evidence?

The AA isn't central to Redfern's thesis. But oddly enough it seems to fit.

In short: There's absolutely no evidence the AA is an FX job aside from some armchair theorizing and, of course, the rote dismissals we can count on CSICOP to provide.

I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong. But you haven't proven a thing. You obviously have a right to your opinion, but please don't fob it off as established fact.

Dante Rosati said...

so what then- the crash debris was put in the film to throw people off the track?

why would fake roswell debris be in a movie autopsy of a genetic mutant or a government experiment victim?

Mac said...

Dante--

It's clear you haven't read a single thing Redfern has written (on this particular subject at least).

As for the "debris footage": It may or may not have anything to do with the autopsy. I sincerely doubt that Ray Santilli, who marketed the film back in 1995, knows where the autopsy footage originally came from -- or cares. It was hastily marketed to milk interest in Roswell (as evidenced by the ridiculously poor-quality "tent footage," to which hoaxers confessed).

See my essay: http://www.mactonnies.com/aa.html

Dante Rosati said...

OK- so you say youself on the page you mention that you "consider the possibility of an outright hoax extremely likely", so I guess we're in agreement.

How are you enjoying "Angels and Aliens"? Its one of my favorites, along with all of Vallee's books.

Mac said...

OK- so you say youself on the page you mention that you "consider the possibility of an outright hoax extremely likely", so I guess we're in agreement.

I'm agnostic re. the AA. Maybe it's a fake. But if so, this needs to be demonstrated. In the meantime, the possibility that it might be a record of a real event -- terrestrial or otherwise -- shouldn't be dismissed just because some debunkers think it looks like a model. Because of course they're going to say that -- it's their job.

I really like "Angels and Aliens" so far. Thompson is very astute.

KennyJC said...

Although I do not think this is an alien, and although I think that most cases of ufology are hoaxes or mistaken identity... I still always reserve the possibility that what being presented is real, and not fabricated in any way.

If even one case is proof of aliens or something very strange, then that would be amazing.

Mac said...

KennyJC--

I don't think the being in the AA is an alien, either. And I don't think it's an FX dummy. A more likely explanation is that it's a human with progeria used in a nuclear/aerospace experiment.

Dante Rosati said...

people with progeria dont have six fingers and they do have belly buttons.

Mac said...

people with progeria dont have six fingers

I was baffled by this, too. "Coincidentally," it turns out that people with progeria are unusually prone to polydactylism.

and they do have belly buttons.

I'm going to watch the footage again to see if I missed it. Fortunately, I have the entire autopsy sequence (plus related bits and pieces) on two research-quality CD-ROMs.

Dante Rosati said...

hi-

searching google for "progeria" and "polydactyly" turns up alot of pages like "diseases starting with P" but I dont see anything saying that progeria sufferers are prone to polydactyly. can you provide a reference?

thanks

Mac said...

Offhand, I know that there's a pathologist's reference to genetic abnormalities such as polydactyly afflicting progeria victims in Redfern's book. I'm looking for more, as I think that might go a long way toward "cinching" it.

dmgggg said...

I remember seeing a bit of an alien autopsy a couple of years back. I don't know if it was the one in question, but I do remember laughing my butt off when I saw the phone with the curly handset cord hanging on the wall. Being an old telephone man, I found that hilarious for 1947.

As I recall, an analysis of the film stock indicated it could be from 1947 or 1967.

Which do you think?

Mac said...

"Being an old telephone man, I found that hilarious for 1947."

That was one of the first things skeptics zeroed in on. Surprisingly, it turns out those curly cords existed in 1939!

I don't pretend to know when the AA was filmed, although credible sources claim to have seen screenings of it as early as the 60s; that argues against an FX hoax.

BH said...

Since Stan Friedman has been at the fore-front of the Roswell controversy, I was curious as to his take on Redfern's possible explanation. And while I donot have his permission to share his email correspondence in response to my enquiry as to his "take on it all", his reply was that submitted to Ufo magazine.
While Friedman is very respectful of Redfern's diligent and careful research, his conclusion (in part) that Redfern has, " Lots and lots of bricks. Without any other knowledge, one could obviously construct a wide variety of different structures. Nick has collected a lot of bricks. The picture he has constructed doesn’t seem to match the facts obtained from witnesses.. It may well be that the Colonel and the Black Widow really believe they were telling the truth. I think it is just as likely that one or both were providing disinformation."
I must agree. While Redfern's conclusions are quite plausible, plausibility is not "actuality".
While Redfern's research is broad in scope, it fails to include the larger UFO reality. And in that sense, it is just as probable that what the many witnesses have reported, was in fact a crashed "alien" disc. And that the recovery of "alien" bodies were just that.

dmgggg said...

"Surprisingly, it turns out those curly cords existed in 1939!"

There might have been curly cords that early, but they would have been made with textile insulation. I don't have a good picture to look at of that phone, but the general impression I had was it was one of the plastic model wall phones that came out in the 60's. And be advised that the military was not on the leading edge when it came to telephone equipment.

Quite frankly, I would think that if they wanted to perform an autopsy on an alien life form they would do it in a much more sterile environment. With better lighting and more attendants, and better photography.

Hoax.

dmgggg said...

As I said, I do not have a copy of the film, nor any phones, just a memory of seeing it a couple of years ago and laughing.

Below is a link to a telephone history site, one of a few on the net that may help to establish what kind of phone that was and if its availability was viable in 1947. My best recollection is it was a 554 type wall phone, but then again you know how memories can be. If someone has a good shot of that phone and can see some details on it, please research it and let us know. If it was a viable item in 1947, especially for the military, then I may become a believer.

http://www.digitallydo.com/phone/index.html

Mac said...

I would think that if they wanted to perform an autopsy on an alien life form they would do it in a much more sterile environment.

What I'm trying to communicate here -- repeatedly, since I keep running into evident incomprehension -- is that *this isn't an alien*. Forget aliens for a moment. This probably wasn't the dissection of an ET. If real, it's more than likely the systematic dissection of a deformed human who had been exposed to radiation as part of a very secret (but now documented) military effort to assess its biological effects.

Mac said...

If it was a viable item in 1947, especially for the military, then I may become a believer.

For whatever it's worth -- and I suspect I'm basically being ignored -- I'm not claiming this was filmed in '47. I don't know when it was filmed. It was quite savvily *marketed* as "proof" of an ET crash near Roswell in 47, but the provenance remains mysterious.

Having said that, I think it's very likely the footage dates from the '40s. As for the phone cord: This issue has been analyzed ad nauseum and yes, the cords existed in 1947.

Mac said...

While Redfern's research is broad in scope, it fails to include the larger UFO reality.

Redfern isn't claiming to have explained "the larger UFO reality." But he thinks he may have begun to unravel the truth at the heart of the Roswell incident. And many respected researchers, among them Jerome Clark, think he's on the right track.

Dante Rosati said...

mac-

Until someone can provide testimony of an experienced pathologist saying that the film looks real,(that is, the actions and behavior of the "pathologists" in the film look like the actions of real pathologists at work), the whole "alien or deformed human" question is moot.

Mac said...

Dante--

You're simply not paying attention. Hell, even the "tabloid" treatment that greeted the AA after it was released in '95 (I'm thinking of the FOX documentary, "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?") features an eminent surgeon who gives a list of reasons that suggest it's genuine.

As for the surgeons seen in the AA itself: It's difficult to assess their methodology because they're on an apparent dedline posed by the radiation hazard. That's why they're wearing containment suits.

dmgggg said...

"As for the surgeons seen in the AA itself: It's difficult to assess their methodology because they're on an apparent dedline posed by the radiation hazard. That's why they're wearing containment suits."

Isn't photographic film sensitive to radiation? Do you really believe that such a film, if authentic, would ever wind up in public view?

Ken Younos said...

Here's what the Skeptical Inquirer has about the Roswell incident:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9707/roswell.html

Dante Rosati said...

I wouldn't put much store in the Fox channel's presentation- either pro or con. I'd like to see a webpage with the testimony of an MD or pathologist whose credentials can be checked.

Mac said...

Dante,

You evidently know how to access the Internet, so I'm not going to do your research for you.

But here are a few Google search words I recommend: "progeria" and "Unit 731."

I would also recommend reading UFO Review's interview with Redfern (as well as his book).

Mac said...

Here's what the Skeptical Inquirer has about the Roswell incident

Mogul is old, old news. It may have indeed played a role. But it doesn't explain the concentrated effort to maintain secrecy. It doesn't explain witnesses to "bodies" in the desert. In fact, it doesn't explain much of anything.

The mainstream "skeptical" establishment is in for some embarrassment; the irony is that it should have discovered the link that Redfern discovered long ago.

But since CSICOP's "research" is accomplished by proclamation -- and the knowledge that the media will listen obligingly to their every word, never asking uncomfortable questions -- I'm really not surprised.

Mac said...

Isn't photographic film sensitive to radiation?

Yes. However, I obviously have no way of knowing how much radiation was present, if my hunch is accurate.

Do you really believe that such a film, if authentic, would ever wind up in public view?

Well, somehow it did. "Leaks" do, after all, happen.

Weird Jay said...

Sorry, Mac, having read the UFO Review article, it seems to me that the disinfo crew must have been so stung by the hooting at "Roswell: Case Closed" that they came up with a sci-fi yarn worthy of "The X-Files".

The Fugo balloons were a real threat during WWII; indeed, there is the distinct possibility that they were the means by which the deadly Hanta virus got to the southwestern US from China. And who can doubt that our gov't has done some pretty sinister things... but the stupidity involved in this scenario would be mind-boggling. As with cattle mutilations, wouldn't there be easier and more secret ways to get the data?

Truly, "they" must be getting just a tad desperate to come up with a whopper like this. The scary thing is that so many thoughtful researchers like you are taking this nonsense seriously.

Dante Rosati said...

mac-

my point is that i can easily find reviews of the AA film by pathologists saying that it looks ridiculous, but I dont see any saying that it looks real. I thought maybe you knew of one.

Paul Kimball said...

Mac:

I think everyone is getting a bit ahead of themselves here. I understand the initial reactions, but I think it's going to take a prolonged period of examination (not to mention everyone reading Nick's book first!) in order to judge the truth of his claims - this applies to both the people who accept that Roswell was an ET incident, and the debunkers who do not.

Unfortunately, at Updates, we're already seeing some of the rancour creep into the discussion, which makes me wonder whether people in ufology are going to be able to discuss this reasonably, using logic to look at all the evidence, as opposed to using it as just another tool with which to club their opponents, both real and perceived.

Paul

Chy said...

The chances of the AA individual suffering from both progeria and polydactyly are next to nil. There is not one single such case in the medical literature that I'm aware of, and I do have some interest in this area.

That, and the internal evidence of the film (judicious editing, fuzzy footage when details could be observed, etc) lends little doubt to it being a special effect dummy.

Whether the footage was produced to mimic "real" footage is not necessarily out of the question, however.

Ken Younos said...

Mogul maybe old, old news, but I thought that the Skeptical Inquirer put forward a pretty compelling argument in this particular article.

Mac said...

I have to agree with Paul; we're reaching the limits of the available evidence. I suspect more will be forthcoming. Until then, "debating" the issue is likely to do more harm than good, since neither "side" can prove that it's absolutely correct -- even though one of these sides appears to think it can.

dmgggg said...

There is one thing about this Roswell incident that makes me lean toward thinking that a lot of it is generated controversy in order to sell books and.or make a name for one's self.

Hundreds if not thousands of military and other personnel that would have to be involved or who had witnessed.

Peacetime Army. Having spent some time in the Army myself I will testify that there were a lot of drunks in it. Always has been, always will be. Those people have a hard time keeping their mouths shut, especially in bars or other places where they try to impress people with their exploits and such.

People are people.

There would have been hundreds running their mouths in short order. All of the threats in the world would not have shut them up for so many years.

Mac said...

"Those people have a hard time keeping their mouths shut, especially in bars or other places where they try to impress people with their exploits and such."

I can only counter that military witnesses *have* spoken of bodies. As for keeping the nature of teh secrey intact, consider the Manhattan Project. The U.S. maintained a virtual city of secrecy in the SW in order to create a nuclear bomb. No leaks. Secrets can be kept, especially if one knows how to employ disinformation (as has been skillfully and repeatedly done to confuse ufologists).

JEFM said...

Well, the Nazis performed horrible experiments with humans. The americans have done the same, so let's not assume it's a Nazi thing. Many countries do this ... and it's just wrong. I never thought of this scenario as a possible explanation to the "AA" video ... it does strike me as possible, specially considering all the people willing to perform these immoral experiments at the time (post-WWII). The "dummy" looks to big for my taste. I have seen people with the disease but they are not that "big" ... I don't know if I make myself clear.

It's an interesting hypothesis.

Mac said...

It's an interesting hypothesis.

I should reiterate that that's all it is at the moment, unfortunately. I can't prove it; I may never be able to. But I think it makes a great deal of sense in light of Redfern's findings.

dmgggg said...

"As for keeping the nature of teh secrey intact, consider the Manhattan Project."

That was controlled from the beginning. People were selected and isolated. And there were "leaks". Russia got the secrets.

I am not discounting the existence of UFO's or ET's. But I do have a problem with Roswell. There are other places with much more evidence of otherworldy evidence.

Perhaps the hype over Roswell is a clever and insidious conspiracy by the government to focus energies and attention on a non-event to hide the real stuff? Or maybe the hype is to sell books. Maybe the aliens are doing that to get some cash. Ooooh, that must be it!

So much of Roswell sounds like a cheap sci-fi movie, and way too much credence is given to individuals of dubious character and/or mental capabilities.

As far as experiments on humans go, why go to the desert? Everything you need is in New York or any big city. The fact is that anything out of the ordinary sticks out in a rural or wilderness setting. Something well known to humanity. Makes no sense in drawing attention to oneself out in areas like that. There are thousands and thousands of humans you can pick off the city streets and no one will notice.

Widya Sena said...

cuka obat kutil kelamin | dimana beli obat kutil kelamin | harga obat kutil kelamin di apotek | jenis obat kutil kelamin | jual obat kutil kelamin di apotik | jual obat kutil kelamin jakarta | jual obat kutil kelamin murah | jual obat kutil kelamin surabaya | kulit pisang obat kutil kelamin | nama obat kutil kelamin di apotik