However, Kiviat did tell ufowatchdog.com that he would release the true identity of Mister M to the public and that Mister M will come forward. Kiviat stated his production company is working exclusively with Mister M and that an announcement could be made as early as this week regarding the identity of Mister M and other information about the Alien Autopsy Film.
"A stunning survey of the latest evidence for intelligent life on Mars. Mac Tonnies brings a thoughtful, balanced and highly accessible approach to one of the most fascinating enigmas of our time."
--Herbie Brennan, author of Martian Genesis and The Atlantis Enigma
"Tonnies drops all predetermined opinions about Mars, and asks us to do the same."
--Greg Bishop, author of Project Beta
"I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the search for extra-terrestrial artifacts, and the political intrigues that invariably accompany it."
--David Jinks, author of The Monkey and the Tetrahredron
"Mac Tonnies goes where NASA fears to tread and he goes first class."
--Peter Gersten, former Director of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
And don't miss...
(Includes my essay "The Ancients Are Watching.")
Join the Posthuman Blues Geographical Matrix!
12 comments:
Damned if I can remember the name of it but BBC produced a short documentary on the subject and Ray Santilli laid out exactly how things were staged and why they did what they did. He never denied the production and even went as far as showing the location where it was shot and who was involved. This is old news isn't it?
The interesting kernel in there was something to the affect that the "real" film was so badly degraded that they ended up shooting a contrived replacement. Having made promises to a number of networks prior to the films release (which had been stored air tight previously), they were horrified to find that most of the film had deteriorated after cracking the can. Santilli then went on to show a few remaining undamaged frames from the "real" film.
So in essence Ray Santilli already admitted fraud here on camera ages ago. Did anyone else see this show or am I living in some parallel universe?
Denny
My understanding is that the new information will reveal the footage's "mastermind." Frankly, the new story told by Santilli is questionable, and conflicts with that of the special FX guy who supposedly created the "alien."
I'm interested in seeing where this goes, as I'm suspicious that the footage *might* have something to do with human testing. If Kiviat lives up to his word, I can look forward to dismissing this possibility once and for all.
And although I don't exactly relish bringing up Korff again, it's notable that Kiviat isn't aware of any legal action being taken. Korff, of course, has been making vague threats about consumer fraud for a long time -- all bogus.
Oh ok, that's interesting. I didn't realize there might be some wiggle room in terms of conflicting stories.
I've always been fascinated with the Autopsy Film and watching the multi-layered media circus unfold around it.
Potentially more interesting and never explained was the "Original Santilli Film Fragment" shown at the following link (Fragments A,B,C,D): http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=Original+Santilli+film . Not much is said about this footage but it really does have some earmarks of reality to it.
One must consider that if there is any validity to the Alien Autopsy film, you can bet related agencies would jump all over it with disinfo. Perhaps even going as far as threatening Santilli and muddying the story further.
Thanks for the update Mac. I'll watch this one closely.
Denny
There's a lingering suspicion that the AA might depict a human afflicted with progeria.
I find it interesting that nobody believed Santilli when he claimed the AA depicted an alien from Roswell, yet debunkers happily took his word for it when he offered a muddled "explanation" for faking it.
Again, all of this is moot if the new testimony passes muster. If it's a hoax, we shouldn't have to take anyone's word for it; there should be a chain of evidence.
"If it's a hoax, we shouldn't have to take anyone's word for it; there should be a chain of evidence."
Wow. If it's a hoax? Is there any question, at this point, that it is in fact, undeniably, absolutely a hoax? Progeria victim? No, absolutely not. It was a silicone dummy made from a mold, stuffed with pig and other organic guts.
Mr. M? Is the possible German financier Michael Hessemann? Oh, I'll let you guess about that one.
"Again, all of this is moot if the new testimony passes muster. If it's a hoax, we shouldn't have to take anyone's word for it; there should be a chain of evidence."
A VERY good point Mac and a position that I sincerely wish more people would adopt when looking at these matters from a cautiously skeptical but open position. While there is certainly enough information to be skeptical about the Santilli story a number of issues simply don't add up. Based on the available, reliable information on the case there may be some validity to the Porgeria/experimentation angle AND a cover-up of some kind.
As with many other cases you can't claim "hoax" without supporting evidence deeming it so. More importantly, that critical potential we all have within us really needs to dig beyond the chorus of reactionary statements and dig for the core truth (rather than relying on our gut). In many cases that choir is simply repeating baseless conjecture. Hopefully Kiviat did his homework and found that nugget of truth proving something either way.
Just because something is "fantastic" does not automatically indicate fraud. In many cases it is simply not what it immediatly appears to be.
Denny
Keep in mind that if the footage is in fact a record of an experiment, or a sci-fi snuff movie, it becomes a commercial hot potato. The owners would very likely go to significant lengths to disown or debunk it.
The footage used in the faux documentary "Alien Autopsy" film is fake--not real--even Ray Santilli now belatedly admits it. Of course, he now claims it's a "recreation" of actual footage that mysteriously "oxidized". There are so many holes in the Alien Autopsy story you could drive an interstellar battleship through them.
Start here:
http://www.trudang.com/autopsy/autocont.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_autopsy
The "BBC produced" documentary? Actually it was "British Sky Broadcasting broadcast [Sky One, specifically] a documentary, Eamonn Investigates: Alien Autopsy, presented by Eamonn Holmes. In this program, Ray Santilli and fellow producer Gary Shoefield announced that their film was only partially real (a "few frames," in their words), while the rest was a reconstruction of twenty-two rolls of film, averaging four minutes in length, which Santilli had viewed in 1992 but which had subsequently degraded from humidity and heat."
(excerpted from wikipedia)
Progeria? No. Japanese atom-bomb victim? No. Turner's Syndrome victim? No. Fake silicone, poorly done fake body stuffed with chicken entrails, with a sheep's brain in jelly, with a sheep knee joint where the "damaged" leg was shown?
Yes. Absolutely. Check the available facts if you doubt me.
Ask Kevin Randle. Ask Bruce Maccabee. Ask Stan Friedman. Ask any number of real, long-term experts in the field. I even discussed this personally with Jacques Vallee and his original mentor, Fred Beckman, from the University of Chicago.
Both agreed it was not an alien, but a hoax, though initially Beckman suggested the body used might be a Progeria victim, even though the polydactyly and other physical abnormalities would suggest Turner's, not Progeria victims, who tend to be children and look quite a bit different. I told Beckman and Vallee in late-1995 that I thought it was an FX silicone fake, which Beckman disagreed with, as he was suggesting the Progeria example as more likely.
He was wrong although he never conceded what I thought was the real source, an FX dummy.
I was right then and I'm right now. Do your research and you will find the same, that what I say is true.
That is the core truth. It's based on extensive research, and discussion with other experts in the field. The information is all over the net, in books, TV documentaries, etcetera.
When Denny says "...a number of issues simply don't add up..." all I can say is can you list these issues? I could say quite a bit more about some of Denny's comments, but will leave things there for the moment.
Prove me wrong.
The footage used in the faux documentary "Alien Autopsy" film is fake--not real--even Ray Santilli now belatedly admits it.
True -- but his account of the making and subsequent disposal of the props directly contradicts the alleged FX artist -- who now refuses to talk.
All I'm saying is that there are some nagging anomalies that deserve an explanation. Hopefully the forthcoming revelation will put them to rest.
Don't bet on it. Kiviat was involved in claiming the AA film was real, when he knew it wasn't, then turned around and, again with Fox Broadcasting, decided he could profit a second time by exposing it as a hoax. Now he's trying to profit off it a third time. Some people have no shame. He is not a reliable source of information.
Guys, it's been a little over 12 years since the AA film came out--Santilli made _millions_ off international distribution and broadcast rights, and more 100's of thousands off sales of the VHS tapes and DVD's.
Santilli is an accomplished pathological liar. His story has changed more times than there are letters in the alphabet. If he was too cheap to pay the guy who alleges he was owed a third of the profits, why did Mr. M wait so long to sue? And for supplying props for the shoot? That doesn't make any sense. I also think the statute of limitations on this kind of lawsuit has long passed.
And Kiviat's characterization of Mr. M's and Santilli's motives? "The goals behind the making of the film according to Mister M were to test the mass public on how we would react if we ever saw an alien on film, and also the media's reaction." Yeah, right. I'd say the evidence stacks up on the side of profits by fraud. Remember, also, all this is coming from Kiviat.
The AA film is a morass of liars, gullible believers, skeptics trying to expose ufologists lack of adequate discrimination, con-men, mutually exploitative media men (Kiviat, and Fox, notorious for unfair and unbalanced coverage of just about everything, owned by a notorious right-wing sensationalist, Rupert Murdoch), ad infinitum.
Mac, what are the nagging anomalies you refer to? Denny, I reviewed the "Santilli film fragments" A - D posted on YouTube by Tyrone. I looked at them carefully months ago, and again today, several times. I don't think they show anything particularly authentic, although they are interesting from an aesthetic viewpoint. Like in, gee, that's a kind of interesting fake, also. Just my humble opinion, of course, backed up by history, facts, others expert opinions, and the obvious fraud Santilli and a host of others have been proven to have created.
Just like the MJ-12 fraud originating with Doty and just like the "Chad drone" hoax. The facts are out there, all over the place. IMHO. You just have to look.
Thanks for the clarification on the documentary “Intense”. I could not for the life of me remember the title or who produced it. The show was very interesting if not incredibly unusual.
Not disagreeing with you but rather saying that there are a number of inconsistencies, conflicting statements and related hiccups with the whole sorted affair. If you’ve truly studied the case then I don’t have to point out the oddities here and the ambiguous nature of some of the claims. The whole media circus surrounding the Alien Autopsy film has generated an almost incalculable mass of misstatement, conjecture and a confusing thread of leads. YES, we can assume the whole thing is a hoax but that assumption requires evidence to be locked down. Santilli can’t be trusted either way. We need proof.
All that I’m saying is that the “core truth” requires some competent and considered evidence. “EVIDENCE” being the key word here, not conjecture or “because I say so” rationale. Say what you want but that’s what I personally need to close the book on the Autopsy case.
I think we’re on the same side really; you just have to chill out a little ;)
-D
Heh. Yeah, I'd agree, D, I do have to chill out at times. I tend to be a bit overly assertive about what my interpretation of the history and facts of the AA film, and some other old and new hoaxes, would suggest are the reasons and sources of such hoaxes, but I will call these things as I see them. It's true I could probably be more effective by being somewhat less strident in my assertions and interpretations.
I just despise those who profit off the manipulation of other's beliefs for profit and due to greed and a lack of ethics and morals. Those kind of fraudsters deserve a special place in ufological hell, and usually need no assistance in placing themselves there all by themselves.
Yet, some of these egregious hoaxes and frauds have gone on so long that the original facts, sequence of events and misleading statements, and later revelations are forgotten by those who come to these incidents belatedly, and I sometimes feel it's my responsibility to point out where new misconceptions may have arisen by reviewing the known, documented history of said hoaxes to those who may not be aware of the length, depth, and complexity of such frauds and how they have evolved in the past. I'll watch my step, D, and try to just concentrate on the facts, although I may from time to time inject a tad of personal opinion and analysis into the stew.
Post a Comment