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.
22 comments:
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.
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--
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
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--
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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--
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.
Here's what the Skeptical Inquirer has about the Roswell incident:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9707/roswell.html
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
Mogul maybe old, old news, but I thought that the Skeptical Inquirer put forward a pretty compelling argument in this particular article.
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.
"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).
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.
Post a Comment