Ufology and Hoaxes

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I wanted to believe that alien autopsy video, so I was disappointed to find out it's a hoax. But after reading in this thread some people still believe parts of Billy Meier's story, I have to wonder if some people still think this video isn't a hoax too? I think it's a hoax.

Seemingly like everything connected to UFOlogy I don't think it is as clear cut as hoax or not.

This link provides a decent summary of the circumstances, there is plenty more reading quick searches will provide and obviously the film as presented is a hoax.

However I just can't help but think that there may be something to the almost too unbelievable story of the whole affair, in that there was some original film.

I find the irony amusing in that a reproduction of a reproduction (i.e. the actual cinema release film Alien Autopsy that very broadly depicts the story of the Santilli alien autopsy film) has the most compelling looking footage.

Could Santilli's alien autopsy video be described as a staged recreation marketed with a hoax ?

It could be a case that the truth about the fiction is stranger than the fiction about the truth.

Originally posted by chunder
This link provides a decent summary of the circumstances, there is plenty more reading quick searches will provide and obviously the film as presented is a hoax.

Wow I haven't stayed on top of that story, as I had no idea Santilli admitted in 2006 that it was a hoax! But i already knew it was without his admission.

Kind of reminds me of the government perpetrated hoax of a weather balloon crash at Roswell that they only admitted was a hoax (aka "cover story") 5 decades later.

You're right, just because his film was an admitted hoax doesn't mean there isn't a real film somewhere, in fact putting out a hoaxed film would be a great disinfo technique to confuse the issue about a real film, but sadly I don't think that's the case here. There are too many other nails in the coffin of the story, like Glenn Dennis being exposed as a liar when nobody could find the nurse Naomi Self who he said saw the alien bodies, then he finally admitted he had fabricated the name Naomi Self.

So that was another hoax, Glenn Dennis making up that nurses same and saying she saw the aliens.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I know what you are saying but I don't subscribe to the belief that one lie necessarily proves all other claims are lies. It does in a lot of cases and at the very least shows the person has the propensity to lie but there could be other reasons.

In the example you mention could there be reasons why the nurse's name was made up but the rest was true ? Was the guy happily married and didn't want someone finding out about the illegimate child he had with the nurse who he then gave a large sum of money to take on a new life somewhere else ?

Unlikely maybe but who knows, there could be plenty of other reasons and the name Naomi Self may have a hidden meaning.

With the Santilli film if he did orginally see something that was real, even if it didn't come from the alleged cameraman (who could have been a disinfo set up) then the rest may be a mixture of 1 part truth and 9 parts con trick.

I think there have been enough veiled hints from enough sources that a film does exist, both of an autopsy and a crashed craft, to conclude that there is something in it. Also hints that body parts (cattle or human depending on the version) were found in the craft.

Whether Santilli did see an original, a disinfo repro, a pure hoax or nothing at all we will probably never know. The alleged camerman could conceivably have had the film, it could conceivably have deteriorated and Santilli could have been under pressure to produce something.

Having been consigned to the never will know the truth bin I believe that the "hoaxed" autopsy was actually a positive event for UFOlogy in that it opened the minds of many to the possibility and even whilst accepted as a hoax it was also accepted that there probably is real footage. Which, IF any one of the many crashed craft with occupants stories are to be believed is almost certainly true.

reply to post by chunder

Having been consigned to the never will know the truth bin I believe that the "hoaxed" autopsy was actually a positive event for UFOlogy in that it opened the minds of many to the possibility and even whilst accepted as a hoax it was also accepted that there probably is real footage. Which, IF any one of the many crashed craft with occupants stories are to be believed is almost certainly true.

This is the strange thing about ufology...even known hoaxes are held as signifiers for reality. Does any other subject share this logic? Everyone apart from Santilli has confessed to their parts in this film. The location (Camden, London) and the dummy maker (John Humphries) are known. Santilli claimed that Kodak had authenticated the film and they hadn't. They offered to later and Santilli wouldn't do so. Given that we know he lied, that he set out to deceive, is there any rational case to suspect that his 'footage decayed' explanation is truthful? Isn't it a bit like 'the dog ate my homework?'

If a UFO has crashed and been recovered there will inevitably be footage of the analysis of wreckage and/or beings from within. There would be footage, photos, transcripts and a large body of reports...somewhere. This isn't dependent on the possibility that Santilli's claims have substance.

He's actually fed off UFO mythology...crashes and cover-ups...then chosen the most widely held belief (Roswell) and come up with his video. The rumours of footage of Roswell inspired his idea. The 300+ UFO crash stories have a direct lineage to the 1890s hoaxes. Again, we're seeing a hoax predict, pre-empt or influence subsequent events.

This freakish quality of Ufology is that its reality is reflected almost perfectly by its hoax element. The reflection is sometimes so compelling or appealing that we can hardly tell the two apart. Hoaxes described 'hieroglyph' markings on crashed spaceships. Then we have Roswell, Kecksburg and Rendlesham/RAF Bentwaters with supposed hieroglyhic markings! The 19th Century authors described small grey guys with big black eyes..and here they supposedly are.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/615c938d369e.jpg[/atsimg]

That famous headline was foreshadowed by the hoaxes and has inspired an interconnected web of intrigues ever since. Reflection and reality have been utterly blurred. It's enough to make us crazy!

I wonder if hoaxes are dictating our perception of the UFO mystery? Some researchers suspect that what lies behind UFOs is controlling our perception of them...

To quote Winston Churchill, It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key.

The list of points you make are definitely valid. It seems too many fans consider questioning the 'sacred cows' of Ufology as unthinkable.

Sacred Cows need to be slaughtered if the evidence is convincing enough. When I set out on researching my Roswell threads, initially, it was because I had been back and forth on how I felt about it, and wanted to really dig into it.

I entered into it, thinking Mogul would emerge as the best explanation. What I found, made me come to a different conclusion.

Still though, if evidence came to light that better explained the incident, it's one cow that could be lead to the slaughterhouse... Just that no explanation yet seems to fit the witness accounts, military's actions, the known coverup, etc. other than the recovery of some kind of craft beyond our means.

reply to post by Gazrok

I entered into it, thinking Mogul would emerge as the best explanation. What I found, made me come to a different conclusion.

What is your conclusion?

Originally posted by Kandinsky

This freakish quality of Ufology is that its reality is reflected almost perfectly by its hoax element. The reflection is sometimes so compelling or appealing that we can hardly tell the two apart.

Very well put.

With - "Hoaxes described 'hieroglyph' markings on crashed spaceships." - are there any specific cases I can refer to ?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Isn't it a bit like 'the dog ate my homework?'

For sure but somewhere there is actually a dog that did !

And that sums up UFOlogy - left looking for tiny shreds of truth buried deep within a foul smelling material excreted by three letter entities.

reply to post by chunder

With - "Hoaxes described 'hieroglyph' markings on crashed spaceships." - are there any specific cases I can refer to ?

Hey thanks for posting The Aurora 1897 probable hoaxed UFO crash had the hieroglyph claims. Cripmeister posted about the famous 'drones' images from not so long back...Drone UFO pics on C2C. The hoaxers went to some length to put symbols on the craft...which ties in again with fiction (Aurora) and *possible* reality (Roswell).

It's a damn weird subject to tell up from down sometimes and some folks seem to want to keep it that way....

Originally posted by Kandinsky
This freakish quality of Ufology is that its reality is reflected almost perfectly by its hoax element. The reflection is sometimes so compelling or appealing that we can hardly tell the two apart. Hoaxes described 'hieroglyph' markings on crashed spaceships. Then we have Roswell, Kecksburg and Rendlesham/RAF Bentwaters with supposed hieroglyhic markings!

That whole post is excellent Kandinsky, I agree.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The hoaxers went to some length to put symbols on the craft...which ties in again with fiction (Aurora) and *possible* reality (Roswell).

It's a damn weird subject to tell up from down sometimes and some folks seem to want to keep it that way....

And you mentioned we can hardly tell the hoaxed cases from the real cases, in the Roswell case I also think the hieroglyphic markings were real as you suggest with the qualifier "possibly", not hoaxed. I find little reason to doubt the mogul story where they admitted that symbols which could be interpreted as hieroglyphs were used on one of the components used in the construction of Mogul.

www.roswellproof.com...

"The big thing is that all of the material that all these witnesses described, every one of them is contained on that Mogul balloon. The hieroglyphics [allegedly only on the tape] was, as we said, traced back to a toy manufacturer"

In Kecksburg, I know at least one witness, Romansky, reported hieroglyphs but I don't have much faith in witness accounts, since all eyewitnesses accounts are questionable, including my own, not just Romansky. But because someone may have a misperception or give a bad eyewitness account doesn't make them a hoaxer, it makes them human, as we aren't very good eyewitness observers.

In the case of Rendlesham I believed Penniston at first until I found out that little notebook he said he kept at the time of the sighting only showed up way after the sighting, suggesting he may have fabricated it years later. So even if he really did see something, the circumstances surrounding his little notebook seem fishy. So yes, he might have fabricated the notebook and'or markings, who knows? The truth is so hopelessly buried on the Rendlesham case, we don't even know the exact dates all the events occurred on.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Gazrok

 

I entered into it, thinking Mogul would emerge as the best explanation. What I found, made me come to a different conclusion.

What is your conclusion?

I would also like to know the answer to that question, as in what the heck am I missing? I only know of some very tiny discrepancies in the case, like Mogul would have used balsa wood and special foil and tape targets on a neoprene balloon and they found neoprene but the wood was almost just like wood but not quite and the foil had magical properties but it looked like foil. I even tried hitting a piece of foil I had with a sledgehammer and nothing happened to my piece of foil either, so maybe the properties of hitting the foil with a sledgehammer and nothing happens to it, aren't so magical after all. (Marcel said you could hit it with a sledgehammer and nothing would happen to it).

Now if Marcel said he had seen a partial disk or saucer shaped craft, like the headline in the newspaper reported, then we'd have a story, and I might not buy the mogul explanation either.

The Australian Hoax UFO video wave - 2006.


(hoaxsters should be publicly flogged)

reply to post by Kandinsky


But really you cannot compare known recent hoaxes, when the knowledge of reports of heiroglyphics on ET craft is widespread, to possible hoaxes of over 100 yrs ago.

To me the fact that there were similarities in reports where those concerned most likely did not know of previous reports adds to the likelihood of authenticity, not the opposite.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


In relation to Roswell and Mogul there is good evidence to suggest that the timeline doesn't fit, balloons used in Project Mogul not in use until some 4 years after the disc / retract / weather balloon incident. Therefore the explanation that the heiroglyhs were leaching of the print from tape used in the construction is simply impossible for the 1947 material.

As far as the wreckage reported matching what the Mogul balloons were made of I believe this is a case of making the descriptions fit after the event. The sheer amount of wreckage reported at the Brazel site cannot be explained by any balloon. The suggestion that Marcel could mistake other balloon arrays launched from Alamogordo as wreckage of "flying discs" just doesn't seem to fit, either with common sense or either of the two "official" USAF explanations.

As for there being no description from Brazel of a disc shaped object there is also good evidence of additional crash sites, the Brazel site being first impact and not final touchdown.

Balsa wood was not used in an I beam profile for the Mogul balloons either so cannot be the recovered material reported, aside from the fact that balsa wood is easily breakable, unlike the beams reported.

The fact tin foil cannot be damaged with a hammer simply clouds the issue, it also does not spring back into it's original shape as reported either.

Bamboo, Japanese characters and rubber backed foil seems a more likely explanation than Mogul if looking at just the material recovered from the loose debris field, but then that doesn't explain a whole heap of other factors. Suffice to say for me the initial "unofficial" USAF explanation fits the known facts the best at the moment !

I don't want to make this thread into a debate about Roswell but since we are discussing hoaxes ..... of which so far in pre YT times there doesn't seem to be too many clear cut ones !

[edit on 23-2-2010 by chunder]

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

But really you cannot compare known recent hoaxes, when the knowledge of reports of heiroglyphics on ET craft is widespread, to possible hoaxes of over 100 yrs ago.

To me the fact that there were similarities in reports where those concerned most likely did not know of previous reports adds to the likelihood of authenticity, not the opposite.

Hiya Chunder, I'm comparing the similarities of old hoaxes, modern hoaxes and possible real events to look for some insight into the mystery. None of this intends to question the authenticity of other incidents and I've tried to focus on known hoaxes.

The real and the imaginary seem inextricably twisted together like cords being bound into a rope or a knotted ball of wool....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/89258dddb608.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Arbitrageur
Hiya A, good post and a lot of points too. The Project Mogul explanation is the best fitting in my opinion. A lot of images support the idea that they were man-made materials. For my money however, there's too much conflicting testimony from credible sources to fully accept the explanation. Just about every witness has also contradicted themselves at one point or other.

I hesitate to get into all the evidence and debate over the years as most people are not for changing on this one. I'll try and come back later with a couple of god debate links out there so people can be their own judges.

The hieroglyphs are still interesting and a couple of images fall within the thread neatly...one conflicts the other. One conflicts with witness descriptions. Typical stuff.

Dr Marcel recalls...

The symbol that he remembers best was a figure of a truncated pyramid with a ball floating over it. "I remember it best because it resembled a seal balancing a ball on its nose", he said.

Link

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/179d300764e2.jpg[/atsimg]



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/25176bc85679.gif[/atsimg]

PM: So what did this debris look like.

JM: Actually there were three kinds of debris. There was a lot of foil-like debris, looked almost like today’s aluminium kitchen foil. Some beams that had some very strange writing or symbols on it. And some black plastic like material. The beams were the most intriguing part of the whole thing with the symbols.

PM: So was it you who first identified these symbols on the beams or did your father point them out to you.

JM: Well I like to think I did but I’m not sure. My mother said that she pointed them out but I like to think I did.

PM: What did the beams look like, what were these symbols.

JM: These were like small I-beams, 12 to 18 inches long. They were about three eights of an inch across. The symbols were just like geometric forms printed on the inside of the I-beam. They had a very distinctive colour of purple or violet. They were solid and not line drawings, they were solid.

An Interview with Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr. (By Philip Mantle)

One of the images looks like the toy store tape described in the Project Mogul explanation...but the symbols don't look anything like we'd expect to find on kid's tape. I notice two identical symbols that don't have similarly repeated symbols following them as production patterns always do. Still, it looks like tape. The other image (Roswell Center) looks nothing like the B&W image, but is closer to the Marcel descriptions.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The hieroglyphs are still interesting and a couple of images fall within the thread neatly...one conflicts the other. One conflicts with witness descriptions. Typical stuff.

Dr Marcel recalls...

The symbol that he remembers best was a figure of a truncated pyramid with a ball floating over it. "I remember it best because it resembled a seal balancing a ball on its nose", he said.

Yes the hieroglyphic evidence is conflicting as is much of the other Roswell evidence. It's interesting that the glyph of the truncated triangle with a ball on top is what he remembers best, yet I don't see that symbol in the recreation images you posted, unless it's there and I just can't recognize it from that description.

But IMO no hoaxing going on in the hieroglyph part of the Roswell story, just the fact that we don't have photographic memories. I'm sure there were some kind of images, but as you point out so well, there is conflicting evidence on what those images or hieroglyphs were.

Oh by the way I see the CSETI thread of Greer's "alien" photo has been moved to the ATS hoax area, now some might claim that that's just a misperception issue too, but I think it goes beyond that, and is really a hoax. I mean, the virgin mary in a grilled cheese sandwich I can see:

news.bbc.co.uk...

But not Greer's alien

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yes the hieroglyphic evidence is conflicting as is much of the other Roswell evidence. It's interesting that the glyph of the truncated triangle with a ball on top is what he remembers best, yet I don't see that symbol in the recreation images you posted, unless it's there and I just can't recognize it from that description.

I had the same ideas as soon as I looked at the image and the quote from Marcel...to my mind it's the one to the far right of the below image (posted earlier)...



As is often the case it doesn't get us any further...what came first? The I-beam or the memory? The reconstruction or the memory?

EDIT: forgot to /img

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Kandinsky]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
[
As is often the case it doesn't get us any further...what came first? The I-beam or the memory? The reconstruction or the memory?

I don't follow - the beam came first, the reconstruction from memory.

How could the memory come before the beam - unless you are saying the memory was prompted by the reconstruction. What then prompted the reconstruction ?

Sorry if I've missed the point but I don't understand what you are saying ?

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by Kandinsky
[
As is often the case it doesn't get us any further...what came first? The I-beam or the memory? The reconstruction or the memory?

I don't follow - the beam came first, the reconstruction from memory.

How could the memory come before the beam - unless you are saying the memory was prompted by the reconstruction. What then prompted the reconstruction ?

Sorry if I've missed the point but I don't understand what you are saying ?

Yeah, I failed pretty badly on that one. I had it clearly phrased and it just went and morphed into nonsense when I typed it out. Rather than delete and try again, I walked away from the scene of the crime whistling innocently.

I was trying to point out how hard it is to arrive at a conclusion about the I-Beam. The reconstruction is sourced directly from Marcel's memories...it's accuracy is as reliable as his memory. The existence of the I-Beams are accepted by all sides....but what they represent is again reliant on memory and grainy photos. The debris in the photos (I-Beam incl.) is claimed by Major Marcel to be different or non-representative of the actual debris that landed.

*What we see in the images might not be what was actually there.
*Marcel's memories aren't necessarily accurate (please read )
*Marcel's father was clear that it wasn't toy tape.
*The Mogul explanation is clear that it was toy tape.

Early retractions of the 'Crashed Saucer' were replaced with new accounts. Layers were added to the story by official sources and independent researchers (Friedman, Warren, Knapp etc). All of this is an identifiable trait of the UFO subject. It represents a lot of what I'm trying to present in this thread...fact and fiction is woven so tightly we can hardly see one from the other.

I get the impression that some members see the 'hoax' in the title and see this as a debunking exercise. It's not at all. It's intended to draw attention to the point/counter-point weirdness of ufology. With Roswell, IMO nobody in their right mind can definitively say they are 100% sure of anything!

Originally posted by Kandinsky

The existence of the I-Beams are accepted by all sides....but what they represent is again reliant on memory and grainy photos.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not sure that the existence of the I-beams has been accepted by all sides. AFAIK none of the parts of either a weather balloon or a Mogul array were manufactured in an I profile, so if it is accepted, what was it from ?

I beams are constructed in that profile to provide as much load bearing strength as possible for the minimum weight, useful in a balloon array perhaps but not sure about in a hypothetical disc. Would mass be a factor in whatever propulsion system is used ?

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by Kandinsky

The existence of the I-Beams are accepted by all sides....but what they represent is again reliant on memory and grainy photos.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not sure that the existence of the I-beams has been accepted by all sides. AFAIK none of the parts of either a weather balloon or a Mogul array were manufactured in an I profile, so if it is accepted, what was it from ?

The existence of beams is accepted by all sides, but chunder is right, the existence of specifically I-beams is not, and most witnesses DO NOT recall I-beams:

roswellproof.homestead.com...

1. WOOD-LIKE TAN STICKS OR I-BEAMS WITH "HIEROGLYPHICS"

Loretta Proctor: Neighbor of rancher Mack Brazel; hard, uncuttable, unburnable balsa woodlike dowel
Bill Brazel Jr.: Son of Brazel; hard, uncuttable, balsa woodlike stick
Major Jesse Marcel: Roswell chief of intelligence; hard, uncuttable, unburnable balsa woodlike rectangular beams with purplish hieroglyphics (also some testimony from his wife Viaud Marcel about hieroglyphics); drawing
Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr.: Marcel's son; metallic I-beam with purplish heiroglyphics; drawing
New! Lt. Jack Trowbridge: Saw "girders" with "hieroglyphics" like "owls" at Marcel's house
1st Lt. Robert Shirkey: Roswell acting operations officer; saw metallic I-beam with purplish hieroglyphics being loaded onto Marcel's B-29
New! Brig. Gen. Steven Lovekin: Yardstick-like metallic beam with "encryptions" from a New Mexico crash shown him in a 1959 Pentagon briefing. Military still trying to decipher.
New! Steve Lytle: Said his mathematician father was tasked with deciphering the I-beam symbols
Charles Schmid: Allegedly on debris field; large woodlike beam with flower drawings
Albert Bruce Collins: Allegedly a Berkeley metallurgist examining debris; rumors of metal-like wood
Walt Whitmore Jr. (AKA "Reluctant"): Son of Roswell radio station KGFL owner; woodlike beams with writing
Bessie Brazel Schreiber: Mack Brazel's daughter; kite-like sticks with rubber foil attached
Cpt. Sheridan Cavitt: Roswell chief of counterintelligence; bamboo-like sticks; no hieroglyphics
W/.O Irving Newton: Gen. Ramey's weather officer; tough balsa sticks with faded purplish symbols

Even Jesse Marcel Jr's father disagreed with him about the I-beam shape. Apparently all you need are some poor memories instead of a hoax, when witness accounts of the same wreckage are this divergent.