From: John W. Ratcliff <70253.3237@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Subject: Detailed Report on "The Film" Date: 19 Aug 1995 18:42:27 GMT CREATURE DISSECTION /Santilli Film ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION by Bruce Maccabee CAVEAT EMPTOR: we have only the cameraman's word for it that this film is related to the Roswell crash events. (See also my paper CAVITT EMPTOR in the MUFON library.) The secret "word" for the day is TRUST BUT VERIFY! (R. Reagan/M. Gorbachev) I have studied the following portions of the Santilli film (as video): Damaged Creature Dissection(DCD) and Debris. I have not studied the "Tent scene" nor the Undamaged Creature Dissection (UCD). There are approximately a gazillion things one could say about this film/video. Here are a few comments and things to watch for when you see it.. 1) The black and white film is quite clean, i.e., no obvious scratches such as one gets from running the film through a projector many times. I conclude that the film has been run very few times. 2) Images of objects further away than (estimate) 5 ft or so are in good focus. Close ups within (estimate) 2 - 3 feet, are poorly focused. This suggests that the cameraman set a fixed focus of (estimate) 6 - 8 feet or so and did not try to refocus as he moved in for close up shots. Supposedly the cameraman used a standard lens on a Filmo 70 camera. If the standard lens had a 50 mm focal length, then the field of view was about 8 degrees high by 11 degrees wide. If the focal length was 25 mm then the field of view was about 16 degrees high by 23 degrees wide. Based on the images in the film I estimate that the 25 mm - "wide angle" - lens was used. The film may have had an ASA (speed) rating around 200. Under bright lights the cameraman could use, perhaps, f/5.6 or so. For a 25 mm lens at f/5.6, set for 8 foot distance, good focus occurs from about 5 feet to about 17 feet. For the same 25 mm lens set to focus at 6 feet and f/5.6, good focus is obtained over the dis tance 4 feet to 10 feet. Higher f/stop numbers would give greater depths of focus, but lower exposure. IF the cameraman wanted to be sure he got bright images he might choose lower fstop numbers which would give shorter depths of field. The are a lot of variables here and only the cameraman knows for sure - if he remembers. The point is, the defocus on close-ups can be explained as an artifact of using a fixed focal length - not zoom - lens at a fixed focal distance. Unfortunately, because of the (presumably) fixed focal length, the increased resolution (ability to see fine details) as the camera moved closer is counteracted by the poorer defocus so that ultimately details were lost rather than gained by the cameraman's actions. 3) The camera is almost always moving. There is hardly a second of stillness. There is, however, only a slight blurring of images resulting from the camera motion suggesting that the film was run at the normal speeed (at 24 frames/sec each frame is exposed for *roughly* 1/2 of 1/24 of a second, i .e., about 1/50 sec.) The continual movement makes it difficult to see specific details without frame-by-frame capability. However, this continual movement causes the camera to film the Creature from many di fferent angles and to film more parts of the room than a tripod mounted camera pointed at the Creature would film. 4) There is a clock on the wall at the Creature's right side (to the left of the operating table as viewed by the cameraman) which reads about 10:06 at the beginning and about 11:45 at end. Hence we know EXACTLY (ROFL) when the dissection took place except for a few small details, such as which day, month, or year, and was it morning or night. These details can only come from the cameraman's testimony. (Note, at the end of the dissection the clock is seen as reflected in an observation window. The reflection causes a right-left reversal which must be "undone" to get the correct time.) On a table against the wall under the clock are a bunsen burner (no evidence that it is burning), test tubes, beakers, some bottles and some sort of filtering or titration (?) apparatus with a ringstand and a funnel in the top of an Erlenmeyer (? been many years since chemistry) flask to act as a collector. There is no appearance of liquid at the bottom of the flask. On the same table one "doctor" was filmed twice as he (she?) writes on note paper. The wri ting is illegible on the video. MAYBE som e of this could be read using the original film. On this table are placed metal (stainless steel?) dishes or bowls at several times during the dissection. There is a phone on the wall that is closest to the head of the Creature (perendicular to the wall with the clock). It has a coiled cord hanging down. There is also what appears to be the standard ring of finger holes for dialing. The handset (microphone plus earphone) hangs over the dialing ring. There is a sign on the wall near the telephone. Large letters read DANGER. I can't read the printing below it. There is a window in the same wall, just a couple of feet beyond the head of the Creature. I presume the room on the other side of the window is an observation room. 5) There are at least three "doctors" in the "operating room" plus the cameraman. Through the observation window one can see a "doctor" wearing a surgical mask. He observes the activities in the operating room and occasionally looks downward as if making notes. There is a microphone (standard studio type) hanging over the operating table. (This could be an intercom system and/or for an acoustic recorder.) The doctors in the cutting room wear complete protective wear with only rectangular, dark windows where the eyes would be. (Looks almost like a welder's mask.) One of the doctors appears to be assisting the doctor who does the cutting. The assistant may be a female (some evidence of breasts). 6) At the very beginning the cameraman moves around Creature's body which is lying on its back on a table. The cameraman does not provide a view from the head toward the feet, but does provide almost continuous coverage at other angles. One can see the left and right sides and oblique views of the top (stomach, chest, etc) of the Creature. There is an obvious, and perhaps shocking (considering the descriptions usually given of aliens as "greys" with large eyes, etc), similarity in appearance to a human. However one notes (at least) the following dissimilarities : A) head shape - more bulbous? - and definitely rounded at the top (no crest). Seems to extend above the eye-ear level more than human adult; i.e., more childlike. There is no evidence of hair and no evidence of a hairline (presumably it was not shaved before the dissection) B) the chest is like a non-muscular male human (undeveloped breasts) although the crotch is female; there may be very poorly developed nipples, but I am not sure of this because what appears to be a nipple might be a slight bruise. Note: there is a bruise on the left chest which is a reasonably prominent dark area perhaps the size of a silver dollar (3 - 4 cm in diameter). The "nipple" is above and to the right of this bruise. C) The Creature has six fingers and six toes. The foot looks like a normal human foot except for the extra small toe on each foot. The toes have toenails. The fingers are slender and appear to be jointed like human, and seem to have fingernails. However, all the 5 fingers (not the thumb) seem to be about the same length. This may be a distortion of perspective, but it appears that what would be the smallest finger, if it were a human hand, is almost the same length as what would be the middle finger, if it were a human hand. D) The legs appear muscular. E) The body appears somewhat muscular. The neck seems thin. F) I do not know the height but it is probably in the range 4 to 5 feet. G) It has a smallish nose H) Its eyes are covered by a dark thin material. This covers the complete eye. After the "doctor" removes (quite deftly, as if experienced) this "filter" the Creature's eyes are seen to be rolled back into its head and one can see the very bottom of what would be the iris in a human eye. The eyeballs *seem* to be larger in proportion than human eyes, but not a lot larger (certainly not the "wrap-around eyes" we have heard about). I) Here is the big anomaly: I see no evidence of a navel. There are a couple of faint dark spots at the left side of the lower belly. These are probably bruises. Does anyone know of off center "belly buttons" on humans? (If this is a hoax, one could imagine covering the navel of a huan corpse with tape that matches the skin color.) What appears to be damage to the Creature is evident before the dissection: D1) a big chunk was taken (chewed?) out of the inner right thigh D2) the left thigh had lots of darkened areas - black and blue marks? bruises? D3) left chest has a noticeable "bruise" (dark area); the left chin, also. Other darkened areas, presumably bruises, are visible at other parts of body, such as under the right arm. The right hand is nearly severed at the wrist. D4) the left side of head above ears seems to have a round depression perhaps as large as an inch in diameter. This might be a slight bruise and not a depression. There is no evidence of bleeding. The autopsy is not for the squeemish. The "doctor" begins at the left ear and cuts straight "downward" toward the shoulder along the side of the neck to chest and then around to the corpse's right side. At times I can see *both sides of the knife* indicating that if this is a hoax using a "bloodknife" (with a tube that emits dark liquid as the "doctor" moves the knife) it is well done, indeed. The track of the knife is a clearly marked thin dark line. However, drops of dark fluid ooze out of this thin dark line at several places *after*, sometimes long after, the knife has passed. I am not qualified to comment on the accuracy/realism of the dissection/autopsy, e.g., whether the cuts which are made are logically what a doctor/pathologist would do. COMMENT: Looks like a dissection on a real Creature. If this is a deformed human female - supposing the navel is there but covered up - then this is clearly a hoax since it is claimed to be the body of a non-human. If after the best of image analysis based on the original film or a superbly excellent copy there is still no evidence of a navel, then..... The Debris film This is in good focus. The "trash" (debris) is on two tables. Individual pieces have labels attached. Some labels are readable (e.g., W138). The right hand table has three "control panels", or "boxes" two of which seem undamaged and one which is clearly broken approximately in half. The edge of the broken panel shows that it is thick, perhaps 2" thick, with some sort of fibrous material inside (wires?). Each panel has left and right handprint depressions side by side. There are "dots" which may be raised above the surface which are within the depressions. Four dots are beneath the palm. There is a dot at the end of each finger and thumb, and there is an arc of dots within an arc shaped depression just beyond the finger tips. The other table has variously sized pieces of debris. The edges of the metal- plate-like pieces are rounded or fused as if they had been melted - cut by a torch? The thickness appears to be 1/16" to 1/4" (not thin metal foils). Of particular interest are the two "H" beams on the table. I call them H beams because they more resemble the letter H than the letter I. One beam has a cross-section size estimated at 2 to 3 " and a length of about a foot. It appears to be cut at each end but the cut is somewhat jagged (does not appear to be a saw cut). On one side of the H, on the outside, is a semicircular ridge running the length of the beam. The other be am has a smaller cross-sectional size, perhaps 1", and is a shorter piece, perhaps 6 - 8" long. Now here is the real "waker-upper" (in case this has all been so boring you're falling asleep). On each side of the horizontal part of the "H" shape (what would be the vertical portion of the I shape) on each beam are symbols which resemble **OLD GREEK LETTERS** There are symbols which are similar to delta, lambda, sigma, theta, rho. The symbols may be artistic variants of the Greek symbols. (Or perhaps some old Greek symbols are simplifications of the symbols on the "H" beams !) Useless comments: Does that mean the aliens speak Greek? Were they bearing gifts? (Beware!) Were they like the motorist whose car broke down on a deserted road and, while he was waiting for help from his friends (used the cellular telephone to call home), along came a drug crazed motor cycle gang (or jackbooted thugs)? Closing comment: I suppose the sorriest outcome of this Creature Dissection Film activity would happen if the film is real but the majority of the world population decides it is a fake because it must be a fake.. it can't depict real aliens because they don't exist - at least not here on earth ... because if it the film does show real aliens then we would all suffer PASTSHOCK... and no one wants to suffer from Pastshock. (This occurs when you find out that the history which you have been told is the "gospel" truth is actually untrue or, at the very least, must be interpreted differently.) Why would history need re-interpretation, you ask? Because if they are here now, they could have been here yesterday or last year or hundreds or thousands of years ago. And I presume you can guess what that means. Keep your eyes on the skies.