Be Skeptical of Roswell Alien Autopsy Film
We need be skeptical of most UFO reports as the posts below show. But as C. S. Lewis' space books show there is no reason to completely rule out life outside the earth.
Fred
The Roswell Alien Autopsy film
Here are some skeptical posts I have collected from USENET. I have lots more links to opinions about the autopsy and related topics on my UFO page .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:53:29 CDT
From: Mark Rodeghier
Message-ID: <95151.115329U35226@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Roswell Film
Lines: 472
Kent Jeffrey, an associate of the Center for UFO Studies, has
asked me to post the following message that describes his
evaluation of the controversial film of an alleged alien
autopsy that has been the subject of so much recent debate.
Mark Rodeghier
Scientific Director, Center For UFO Studies
P.S. For those who might want to contact Kent directly, his
address is KAJeffrey@AOL.COM
***********************************************************
INTERNATIONAL ROSWELL INITIATIVE
A Quest for the Truth
May 26, 1995
Bulletin #2 -- SUBJECT: THE PURPORTED 1947 ROSWELL FILM
By Kent Jeffrey
The last 18 months have been quite eventful with respect
to Roswell. In January of last year, Congressman Steven
Schiff of Albuquerque, New Mexico, announced to the press
that he was requesting the General Accounting Office (GAO)
to look into the Roswell case. Nine months later, the Air
Force, possibly in an attempt to upstage the GAO, and in
what "Newsweek" magazine called a "preemptive strike,"
released its own report on the Roswell incident. The Air
Force report was the first official word on the Roswell
matter in 47 years and basically supported (although
without offering any proof) the original 1947 "cover
story" that the officers of the 509th Atomic Bomb Group
were fooled by the remains of a downed balloon and ML-307
radar reflector.
Now, a new factor has entered the picture. A film has
surfaced in England that is supposedly top-secret
documentary footage taken at Roswell in 1947 by a U.S.
military photographer. The existence of the film was
first announced last January; however, the film was
allegedly purchased in the United States almost two years
ago. Needless to say, the film has generated much
interest and controversy, along with a variety of opinions
from UFO researchers and members of the media as to its
authenticity.
As author of the Roswell Declaration and coordinator of
the International Roswell Initiative, I have attempted
when possible to maintain neutrality on controversial
issues within the UFO research community and to avoid the
infighting that, unfortunately, has so often characterized
this field. I have felt that maintaining a neutral stance
was important and appropriate, especially in view of the
fact that the Roswell Declaration and the grassroots
effort behind it has had the unified support of the three
largest and most respected UFO organizations in the United
States, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), the J. Allen Hynek
Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), and the Fund for UFO
Research (FUFOR). Furthermore, over 17,000 people, from
varying backgrounds, including hundreds of scientists and
engineers, have signed and submitted copies of the Roswell
Declaration.
While I have primarily concentrated my efforts on
achieving the objective of the Roswell Declaration -- an
Executive Order to declassify any existing U.S.
government-held information concerning UFOs or
extraterrestrial intelligence -- I have also become
involved with researching the Roswell case. In the past
two years, I have made five trips to Roswell, visited the
debris site at the Foster (Brazel) ranch, and interviewed
many of the surviving Roswell witnesses. I believe such
experience gives me a definite advantage in evaluating any
alleged Roswell film footage.
The film in question is presently in the possession of a
company in London, Merlin Productions, owned by a Mr. Ray
Santilli. On Friday, May 5, 1995, there was a special
showing at the Museum of London. There were approximately
one hundred people present: members of the media
(including the BBC), potential buyers of the film, and UFO
researchers from the United Kingdom and other countries.
Despite the fact that the film is totally unauthenticated,
it has received extensive publicity in Europe. For
example, the film has been featured in full-length feature
articles in London's "Sunday People" and Berlin's "Morgen
Post."
Because of the dubious nature of the film and the
questionable way in which it is being handled by those in
possession of it, there is a tremendous potential for
damage to the entire Roswell effort. Because I was the
only Roswell researcher at the May 5th showing, I feel a
responsibility to put neutrality aside and speak out.
Before going into specific details about the viewing, I
would like to state up front and unequivocally that there
is no (zero!!!) doubt in my mind that this film is a
fraud. I might add, however, that if, against all odds,
what I consider the impossible did occur, and this film
actually turned out to be genuine, I would be one of the
first to celebrate, as researchers would finally have in
their possession the Holy Grail of evidence necessary to
break the Roswell case wide open.
The actual showing of the film took place just after 1:00
p.m. in a small auditorium that is part of the Museum of
London complex. A handout was distributed at the sign-in
table consisting of a copy of the alleged MJ-12 briefing
papers and a yellow cover sheet referencing the 1947
Roswell crash and the 509th Bomb Group (at Roswell Army
Air Field). Merlin Productions was apparently very
concerned about pictures being taken because everyone was
physically searched (frisked) for cameras upon entering
the auditorium. There was no speaker or announcement to
formally welcome those present or to introduce the film.
This seemed somewhat bizarre and discourteous, as people
had come from all over the world for this showing. Also
conspicuously absent was a person on stage afterward to
publicly answer questions pertaining to the film. After
having viewed what was presented, however, it was not hard
to understand why this was the case.
Prior to the showing, anticipation was high. In the
previous three months, Ray Santilli had put out the word
through those in close contact with him that the film
consisted of 15 10-minute reels (in their original
canisters) of 16-millimeter black-and-white film, for a
total of 150 minutes. He reported that it was dated as
1947 vintage film stock and that it had been acquired from
a former army photographer, Jack Barnett, who claims to
have shot the footage and then, incredibly, to have stolen
15 canisters of film, without the theft having been
detected. Word was also put out that there was 45 minutes
of footage taken at the actual recovery site showing a
number of soldiers in uniform and a large crane lifting
the crashed craft onto a truck. Additionally, Santilli
claimed that one of the scenes showed President Truman
behind a glass partition with such clarity that someone
capable of lip reading would be able to determine his
words when he spoke. At the showing, we would see none of
this -- no debris site, no soldiers, no crane, no crashed
saucer, no President Truman. Instead, we saw just 20 to
25 minutes of one single scene -- an autopsy of a supposed
alien body in a small white room.
At about 1:05 p.m., the lights dimmed and the film started
rolling. Before the actual picture began, a few short
statements scrolled by on the screen with reference to the
film having been "acquired from the cameraman who
originally shot the footage" and to the copyright being
"exclusively owned by Merlin Communications."
Interestingly, one would think that if the film were
genuine, the copyright would be "exclusively owned" by the
United States government.
Also, contrary to what had been said previously about
"10-minute reels," there was now a statement on the screen
that the film was recorded on "three-minute" reels. I
recently learned from a good friend in the film industry
that 1947 vintage 16-millimeter film came on reels of 100
feet, which at 16 frames per second would be about three
minutes each. Perhaps this information was also "recently
learned" by Merlin Productions and that is why we are now
seeing references to "three-minute" reels instead of the
originally reported "10-minute" reels.
The film opened abruptly with its single scene of a small
operating or autopsy room with plain white walls and a
table in the middle containing an unclad body lying face
up. Two individuals in white anti-contamination suits,
complete with hoods and narrow, rectangular glass
faceplates, were the only figures visible in the room. A
third person, dressed in white hospital-type garb, was
visible through a large glass partition, or window.
Although he was outside the sealed room standing behind
solid glass, he was wearing a surgical mask that covered
his entire face. Perhaps there was concern that he might
later be recognized?
The features of the body lying on the autopsy table in
this film do not even come close to what was described by
the 1947 Roswell witnesses. What was visible on the
screen was apparently a slightly doctored human corpse.
While in theory it could have been an elaborate dummy, the
chances of that are remote. I, along with others with
whom I've spoken who were also at the viewing, have little
doubt that the body was a doctored human corpse. If such
is the case, it would make this one of the most despicable
and deplorable hoaxes ever perpetrated. It would mean
that those who put this atrocity together butchered the
body of a once-living human being (a woman in this case)
solely out of greed. If this is determined to be the
case, a criminal investigation might well be in order, as
using a human body for such unscrupulous purposes is not
only highly unethical, but also illegal in most places.
Although the exact height of the body was difficult to
determine, it was definitely shorter than normal, probably
somewhere around four and a half to five feet. The head
was somewhat large relative to the torso, but not
extraordinarily so. The body was also barrel chested and
apparently bowlegged, and had an overall stocky
appearance.
Other anomalous features included no visible body hair,
small and somewhat odd-shaped ears, a small (slightly
abnormal-shaped) nose, slightly large eyes covered by
black membranes (which were later removed), a distended or
bloated abdomen (ascites), six digits on the feet
(polydactylism), apparently six digits on the hands, and
legs so badly swollen that the definition of the knee was
hardly recognizable. According to medical people with
whom I spoke, none of these features would have been too
difficult to produce artificially. The black membranes
covering the eyes, for example, could have been placed
over the eyeballs with the same apparent ease with which
they were removed during the alleged autopsy. The sixth
digit could have been added using the techniques of
plastic surgery, although polydactylism itself is not that
uncommon a condition. It was also pointed out that some
of the abnormalities of the body could have been
attributable to a genetic defect or even a physical
ailment prior to death. For example, congestive heart
failure could explain the swelling (edema) of the legs and
the bloated appearance of the abdomen (ascites).
Despite the above-noted anomalies, the body essentially
had the appearance of a human being. It had what was
basically a human head, a human torso, human skin, human
legs, human arms, human shoulders, human hands, and human
feet -- all in basically the right proportions. The ratio
of the length of the upper arms to the lower arms, as well
as the ratio of the upper legs to the lower legs, was
exactly what would be expected for a human being. The
musculature of the arms and legs appeared the same as the
musculature of human arms and legs. The relative
positions of the forehead, eyes, nose, ears, mouth, and
chin were very close to what would be expected on a human
head. Although the eyeballs appeared larger than normal,
the size of the eye sockets did not appear that abnormal.
Other distinctly human features included the mouth, lips,
teeth (the front-lower teeth were momentarily visible in
one shot), jowls, noticeable protrusions of underlying
bones in just the right places, including the jaw, shin,
and clavicle, a brief glimpse of what appeared to resemble
a flattened nipple area (although no protrusion of the
breast), female genitalia, fingers, a thumb, toes, and
even a brief glimpse of a toenail (a human vestigial
remain!).
During the supposed autopsy procedure, the body cavity was
cut open lengthwise from the throat to the groin and
various internal organs were removed and placed in metal
pans. The focus, or resolution, was so poor, however,
that whatever was removed appeared simply as dark blobs,
with detail being almost impossible to discern. There did
appear at times to be a small amount of dark fluid oozing
from the body cavity.
Basically, the body shown in this film appeared to be that
of a short, adult, human, Caucasian female, with the age
being difficult to determine. The swollen legs and other
minor "modifications," such as an extra digit on the hands
and feet, and the "doctoring up" of the eyes and ears,
resulted in an overall slightly freakish appearance.
Professor Jared Diamond of the UCLA Medical School, in his
book "The Third Chimpanzee," states that there is a "98.4
percent" similarity in the genes of humans and chimpanzees
(our closest primate relative). The resemblance between a
chimpanzee and a human being is slight compared with the
resemblance between the body in this film and a normal
human being. The body in the film was extremely human,
albeit somewhat abnormal in appearance. It does not take
a scientific mind or much imagination to realize that it
would require a genetic similarity far greater than the
98.4 percent between man and chimp to produce a being as
close in appearance to a normal human as was the body on
the autopsy table in this film.
It is common knowledge that the human organism, like all
other life forms on earth, is the product of approximately
three billion years of evolution, involving untold numbers
of mutations and trillions of chance combinations of
genes. Exobiologists tell us that the chances of billions
of years of evolution on another planet resulting in "the
fine structural details" of a human being are all but
zero. While differences would be vast, there would,
however, likely be some basic similarities between us and
any other species that became technologically advanced.
Such features as two legs (bipedal), two arms, a high
level of dexterity, two eyes (binocular vision for depth
perception), and a large brain would almost surely be
required for any species to evolve as a tool user and
maker.
I recently discussed this matter with an acquaintance who
is a science professor at a Midwestern university and who
has a background in biochemistry, human biology, human
genetics, and exobiology. He agreed that parallel
evolutionary development in another world over billions of
years leading to an advanced organism so nearly identical
to a human being would never happen. The laws of
probability rule it out. It can therefore be stated
definitively that the body in this film is not of
extraterrestrial origin. The film is a fraud.
In addition to the "fatal flaw" of anthropomorphism --
probably the result of scientific illiteracy as well as
sheer ignorance on the part of its producers -- the film
has other problems, most of which are of a more
circumstantial nature. For example, the photography did
not seem consistent with what one would expect for the
documentation of an historic medical event. There was
excessive panning and poor focus with the majority of
closeups. Also, most of the closeup shots were too
fleeting, allowing no time for serious study or
observation. The gestures of the two "physicians" seemed
exaggerated and even staged at times. Although it is
purely speculative, one would think that for such a
monumental event, there would have been a large team of
specialists directly participating, along with a number of
additional specialists observing from behind the glass
partition.
Establishing this film as a hoax is much easier than
determining the source of the hoax. It is possible that
Ray Santilli and Merlin Productions are themselves victims
of a scam. However, it must be said that their actions in
the last few months do not seem consistent with those of
an organization confident that it is in possession of the
"genuine article." Among other things, Mr. Santilli has
mentioned a secret viewing for church officials, a private
viewing for the counter-intelligence wing of the FBI,
verification of the film by Kodak as 1947 vintage, and,
most recently, an offer from an undisclosed client
represented by a Washington, DC, law firm for $1.8 million
to purchase the film "as is." None of these claims has
been verified. Furthermore, no one has seen any of the
alleged footage of the debris site or that showing
President Truman.
Even more significantly, no one has been able to verify
the existence of the photographer, Jack Barnett. If this
film were genuine and such a photographer actually
existed, the government would undoubtedly know his
identity. Since he reportedly stole and subsequently sold
15 canisters of top-secret U.S. government film, he would
be in serious trouble. His best protection would be to go
public immediately. The government would then be in a
catch-22 situation because if they so much as raised a
finger against him, they would be instantly validating the
entire Roswell event.
On January 19, 1995, I wrote a letter that was passed on
to Mr. Santilli in which I mentioned the prestigious
Washington, DC, law firm I retained two years ago for the
purpose of providing legal counsel for Roswell witnesses.
I pointed out the importance of the photographer in
validating the film and offered the services of the law
firm to represent the photographer. That offer was never
accepted. After having viewed the May 5, 1995, showing of
the film, I now know why. Either the supposed
photographer is one of those behind this hoax, or else he
does not exist.
Over the last years, the three major nonprofit UFO
research organizations in the United States, along with a
number of private individuals operating on their own time
and at their own expense, have put a lot of resources and
effort into the admirable cause of getting to the truth of
what could well be the "story of the millennium."
Although it is still very much an uphill struggle, much
progress has been made in bringing to the Roswell case
serious and credible attention on the part of the media,
the public, and a number of politicians. It is
unfortunate that there are now those who would
unscrupulously exploit the Roswell Event for their own
financial gain.
It is important that the UFO community make every effort
to get to the bottom of this matter as soon as possible,
including calling for a criminal investigation if it is
determined appropriate. Standing by and doing nothing
could be a serious mistake. Unfortunately, although they
may be in the minority, there are journalists and
television producers out there who are far more interested
in the possible sensationalistic appeal of this kind of
film, than in bringing people the truth. As the hype and
publicity surrounding this film continue, there is a real
danger that people will start to connect the reality of
the Roswell event with the authenticity of this film.
Then, once the film is publicly exposed as a hoax, which
it inevitably will be, there is a real danger that people
will tend to assume that the whole Roswell event is a
hoax.
Fortunately, however, as experts obtain more information
about the true nature of this purported Roswell footage,
the entire matter of this film should be nipped at the bud
and put to rest. Attention and resources can again be
concentrated on the actual Roswell event, the best
documented case in the history of the UFO phenomenon.
__________________________________________
Addendum:
The investigation of the Roswell case is still very much
an ongoing affair. Despite the passage of nearly 48
years, new witnesses are still being sought by
researchers, as many of those involved were young enough
at the time to still be alive today. Reportedly the GAO
report on Roswell will be out in July. It is also
reported that the Air Force will be coming out with a
follow up to their September 8, 1994, report on Roswell
which, according to the report itself, was supposed to be
their "final word" on the subject. ("The lady doth
protest too much." -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet")
The International Roswell Initiative is also an ongoing
concern. With the count of Roswell Declarations well over
17,000 so far, signed Declarations are still being
received. A special Web page for the International
Roswell Initiative is now being set up on the Internet.
With this new feature, it will be possible to fill out and
"sign" a Roswell Declaration "electronically." This could
increase the numbers significantly.
It will also be possible to download from the Web page all
future bulletins of the International Roswell Initiative.
(Previous bulletins will also be made available.)
Bulletins will be issued periodically and will cover
events concerning the progress of the Roswell
investigation as well as the Roswell Initiative. The 1994
Air Force report (another "piece of deceit," albeit of a
different sort) will also be addressed in a future
bulletin.
The temporary address of the Roswell Web page is:
http://erau.db.erau.edu/~elston/IUFOG/roswell
The permanent address, available in late June, will be:
http://www.qlink.net/roswell
Your help in distributing International Roswell Initiative
bulletins and the Roswell Declaration is greatly
appreciated. For further information on the International
Roswell Initiative, contact:
International Roswell Initiative
3105 Gables Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30319 USA
(404) 240-0655 Phone/Fax
Email: roswelldec@aol.com
The Mutual UFO Network
103 Oldtowne Road
Seguin, Texas 78155 USA
The Center for UFO Studies
2457 West Peterson Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60659 USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Roswell Aliens-altered corpse theory
From: lazzwaldo@aol.com (LazzWaldo)
Date: 26 Aug 1995 04:41:34 -0400
Now who in their right mind would say that these are altered human
corpses? That is patently ridiculous. I have seen the photos, and believe
me, the "aliens" are dummies easily constructed by any competent makeup FX
house. I run one myself, so I know whereof I speak. Get real. A guy who
has the wherewithal to fake sets and film stock ALSO has the
resourcefulness to obtain human corpses and then MODIFY them? What sort of
"modifications" do you suggest have taken place? I'm saying that the
SIMPLEST "modifications" to human corpses (derma-wax and makeup in
mortuaries) are, as many people have seen, not very seamless or
convincing. It's a hell of a lot easier to contract with a makeup FX
house, sign 'em to secrecy (we sign non-disclosures all the time), and
have 'em make a bitchin' alien corpse than it is to wangle a deceased
human body. Foam latex, gelatine, urethane, and silicone are all materials
that can appear fleshlike on film. It's pretty easy to obtain animal
organs and place them in a false body cavity. Gore is some of the easiest
stuff to fake. Ironically, there should be more! When you see the film,
note the minimal damage to the "bodies". For the amount of damage their
"craft" supposedly took, and the ease with which man-made autopsy tools
render their "flesh" (indicating a pretty close similarity to human
tissue; no invulnerability here) you would have seen a HELL of a lot more
tissue damage. Look in a forensic pathology book at air crash victims.
They turn to hamburger; shredded, pulverised, and barely recognizable from
their original form. Hey, I'm a skeptic, too, but explanations along the
lines of "modified human corpses" are absurd, way out of line, and
laughable. You don't gain any credibility or further the cause for
rational thinking with that kind of garbage. Occam's Razor cuts into
synthetic, not real flesh, in this case.
Rick Lazzarini
President, The Character Shop
Creators of some fine animatronic creatures and makeup FX for: Dumbo Drop,
Bud Frogs, Outbreak, The Santa Clause, Miller Lite BassBall and Surfing
Cow ads, The Sandlot, and many others....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ed Uthman
Newsgroups: sci.med.pathology,sci.med,misc.education.medical,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Fox's "Alien Autopsy" - A Pathologist's View
Date: 15 Sep 1995 01:12:20 GMT
Organization: Pathanarchy
I have just watched a tape of this very interesting show, but I must say
that I have to be a little less charitable than the pathologist
commentators on the show. I think it is a hoax, for some of the reasons
brought up on the show and other reasons of my own.
1. I agree with the cinematographer whose suspicion was raised when the
close-up shots were out of focus. Clearly the camera _could_ focus
closely, as in the external shots and shots of the excised "organs" on
the table, but where you really needed resolution to figure out the
anatomy (the in situ shots), the film was conveniently fuzzy.
2. Any pathologist involved in such a case would be obsessed with
documenting the findings. He would be systematically demonstrating
findings every step of the way, such as showing how the joints worked,
whether the eyelids closed, etc. He should be ordering the cameraman all
over the place, but instead the cameraman was totally ignored, like he
wasn't there at all. The pathologist acted more like an actor in front of
a camera than someone who was cooperating in a photographic documentation
session.
3. The prosector used scissors like a tailor, not like a pathologist or
surgeon. He held the scissors with thumb and forefinger, whereas
pathologists and surgeons put the thumb in one scissors hole and the
middle or ring finger in the other. The forefinger is used to steady the
scissors further up toward the blades.
4. The way the initial cuts in the skin were made a little too
Hollywood-like, too gingerly, like operating on a living patient. Autopsy
cuts are deeper and faster.
5. I would expect the skin of a species with a jointed endoskeleton to be
elastic, so it could move with and glide over moving joints. When cuts
were made in the "alien's" skin, the edges of the skin did not retract
from the blade.
6. The most implausible thing of all is that the "alien" just had
amorphous lumps of tissue in "her" body cavities. I cannot fathom that an
alien who had external organs so much like ours could not have some sort
of definitive structural organs internally. And again, the prosectors did
not make any attempt to arrange the organs for demonstration to the
camera.
7. This of course is outside my area of expertise, but the whole
production just did not "look right" for a military documentary of the
1940's. I'm sure an expert in lighting, cinematography, etc. could be a
bit more specific. Maybe they should have hired the guy who did Woody
Allen's _Zelig_ to give the production a little more technical
verisimilitude.
8. And the "period pieces," the wall phone and electric wall clock were
just a little too glib, IMHO.
9. Oh, yeah. The body was not propped up on a body block (which goes
under the back during the examination of the trunk and under the head for
removal of the brain). This is a very basic piece of autopsy equipment,
and all pathologists use it.
So, I think it was a really fine effort, worthy even of a Cal Tech prank,
but not quite good enough to be believable.
Ed Uthman, MD
Pathologist
Houston/Richmond, TX, USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lmetlay@acu.pathology.rochester.edu (Leon A. Metlay)
Newsgroups: sci.med.pathology
Subject: Re: Fox's "Alien Autopsy" - A Pathologist's View
Date: 19 Sep 1995 11:46:31 -0500
Ed Uthman wrote a fine analysis of the Fox program, with which I mainly
agree. I have only a couple of things to add.
1. They should have had a dysmorphologist look at the film, not a couple of
forensic pathologists. It's clear from his comments that Cyril Wecht (one
of my teachers in med school BTW) doesn't really know much about Turner
syndrome. I do lots of dysmorph autopsies and have had to learn a bit.. The
alien shown doesn't look like any obvious syndrome to me but a trained
person should have looked at the film. It did occur to me that a long-time
survivor with untreated hydrocephalus would have the relatively large head
and low-set appearing ears. Perhaps unusually long survival with Trisomy 18
could account for polydactyly and hydrocephalus, but I can't say the face
really looked like a Trisomy 18 patient.
2. The amorphous globs of stuff they took out of the body cavity are
reminiscent of what blood clot and some internal organs have looked like in
poorly embalmed bodies I have autopsied. Could this be a body that was
embalmed and autopsied later? Yes, I suppose, except I'm not sure this was
a real body.
3. I think that some of this tissue would have surfaced somewhere in the
last 40 years. If it was anywhere, it would be at the AFIP. Knowing them,
they'd have published a fascicle on alien pathology by now.
Leon
--
Leon A. Metlay, M.D.,Associate Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
University of Rochester Medical Center Phone: (716) 275-5691
P.O. Box 626 Fax: (716) 273-1027
Rochester, NY 14642 lmetlay@acu.pathology.rochester.edu
http://wwwminer.lib.rochester.edu/wwwml/Leon/URPLM.html
"Most ass drivers are evil, most camel drivers are decent, most sailors are
saintly, the best among physicians is going to Gehenna, and the best of
butchers is a partner of Amalek" -R. Judah, in Mish. Kidd. 4:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.abduct,alt.ufo.reports
Subject: LONDON SUNDAY TIMES INVESTIGATES AUTOPSY FOOTAGE - suntimes.txt [1/1]
Date: 17 Sep 1995 20:51:23 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.
FILM THAT 'PROVES' ALIENS VISITED EARTH IS A HOAX
From: Doug Roberts (doug@nolimits.demon.co.uk)
"The Sunday Times" - 30 July 1995, London
by Maurice Chittenden
RELAX. The little green men have not landed. A much-hyped film purporting to
prove that aliens had arrived on earth is a hoax.
An investigation by "The Sunday Times" has established glaring discrepancies in
the claims made by those marketing the film footage. Simultaneously, experts
called in by Channel 4, which is due to screen the film as part of a
documentary on August 28, have declared it bogus.
A source close to the documentary said: "We have had special effects guys look
at it and they say it's a fake."
The black-and-white footage supposedly comes from cans of 16mm film shot by a
US military cameraman, now 82, after a "flying saucer" crashed near Roswell in
the New Mexico desert in July, 1947.
Among the flaws found by "The Sunday Times" are:
* "Security coding" on one film disappeared when its accuracy was challenged.
* A "letter of authentication" from Kodak was signed by a salesman.
* President Truman, supposedly visible on film, was not in New Mexico at the
time.
* Symbols seen on particles of wreckage are totally different to those
remembered by an eyewitness.
* "Doctors" -- performing a supposedly unique autopsy on an alien -- remove
black lenses from his eyes in a matter of seconds and as if they knew what
to expect.
Little green men are a jolly green giant hoax
Experts have told Channel 4 the film may be a recent production. The source
said: "They say it's a good fake. That means, in their opinion, it can't b
before the 1950s or possibly the 1960s, but it could be in the past few years."
The so-called Roswell incident is a cause celebre among UFO-spotters. There was
certainly a cover-up by the military authorities who at first claimed the crash
wreckage was that of a weather balloon, later it was admitted that it belonged
to a high-altitude balloon being used to monitor Soviet nuclear tests. Ever
since, conspiracy theorists have claimed it was really an alien spaceship.
So there was an eager ready-made audience waiting when Ray Santilli, a London
video distributor, announce earlier this year that he had obtained film of
autopsies carried out on two aliens, as well as footage of the wreck.
Santilli, whose previous closest encounter was handling the British rights to
the video of Tin Tin's Explorers on the Moon, claims he met the cameraman while
researching a film on Elvis Presley's days in the army. He said he paid
$100,000 for the footage.
Scientists, journalists, and UFO experts have since been invited to view video
versions of the film. However, Santilli has refused to identify the cameraman,
to produce a receipt for his purchase, or to say where the 16mm film was
transferred on to video. The original film is said to be in a Swiss bank vault.
Suspicions were first aroused because injuries visible on the bodies of
ET-lookalikes shown undergoing dissection were not consistent with an aircrash.
Santilli had claimed Truman was clearly visible attending one of the autopsies.
However, the Harry S. Truman Library in Missouri has checked his schedule for
June to October, 1947, and found he was not in New Mexico during that period.
When footage of one autopsy was shown at a private screening in America, it was
codemarked with the words "Restricted access, A01 classification." However,
"restricted access" is not a recognized US military code and A01 classification
has been dismissed as "pure Hollywood."
Later, when film of the same autopsy was shown to John Purdie of Union
Pictures, which is making the documentary for Channel 4 as part of its Secret
History series, the coding had disappeared.
Last week Santilli's office handed The Sunday Times an updated "letter of
authentication" from Kodak, supposedly proving that the film used for the
Roswell footage was manufactured in 1927, 1947, or 1967.
However, the letter was only obtained on June 21 when Gary Shoefield, a British
associate of Santilli, and Don Lounck, an American film producer, walked into a
Kodak office in Hollywood and spoke to Laurence Cate, a sales representative.
He typed a letter for them containing the three dates.
Cate said last week: "I didn't think we were looking a a scientific inquiry.
There is no way I could authenticate this. I saw an image on the print. Sure,
it could be old film, but it doesn't mean it is what the aliens were filmed
on."
Channel 4 and others are now demanding tests on film which is seen to be cut
from a 16mm reel containing Roswell footage.
There may not be little green men out there, but millions of big green dollars
are resting on the outcome. Santilli is already selling stills from the
footage on the Internet and has struck worldwide exclusive deals with magazines
and television companies, as well as planning to sell the film himself on
video.
However, there was confusion in the answers given to questions last week.
Shoefield said no footage had ever been released marked "restricted access."
Santilli, however, claimed he had found the markings on one can and decided to
run them on the film "as one would a timecode."
Santilli is now under attack from scientists and also the UFO community. Paul
O'Higgins, a medical anatomist at University College London said the six-
fingered, six-toed alien shown on the autopsy table was basically humanoid.
"The chances of life evolving to be that similar, even on two identical
planets, is the same as the odds of buying a lottery ticket every week for a
year and winning the jackpot every Saturday night," he said.
The UFO community is equally skeptical, but for different reasons. A nurse who
supposedly saw the alien crash victims in 1947 said they had only four digits
on each hand. Some UFO experts claim the footage may even have been "leaked"
by the American government as an act of disinformation to stop growing
speculation about what happened at Roswell.
Santilli, who has pictures of Sergeant Bilko and the Starship Enterprise on his
office walls, remains confident in his product. He said: "I have been offered a
blank cheque for the footage. It is genuine."
Close encounters of the financial kind: businessman Ray Santilli, who handled
the British rights to the video of Tin Tin's Explorers on the Moon, and a still
from the 'alien' footage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eb375@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles Cassady Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Another "Alien Autopsy" debunking to throw on the pile...
Date: 3 Nov 1995 16:05:15 GMT
I don't pop into this newsgroup as often as I used to, but of all
the "Alien Autopsy" discussions I've never seen this particular
point brought up:
Apart from it being on Fox (I wouldn't believe the L.A. riots
were for real if they were on Fox), the most notable detail
that I think automatically debunks the film: no sign
of any still photos being taken.
Think about it. Still photos would have provided much
more useful detail and controllable results, compared with
the fuzzy 16mm rangefinder rig we were TOLD was used. Yet
at no point during the freak show did I see a still
photographer present, or clear gaps in the autopsy process
where the cine cameraman could have put down his rig and
gotten better shots with a still camera, especially prior and
after all the slicings and dicings.
The impressively-researched book "UFO Crash at Roswell" states
that the a special government photo unit had been dispatched to
the Roswell Air Force base right after the `balloon crash.'' The
base's own photo unit was not permitted near the
debris/bodies/whatever.
Now, lets assume that the "Alien Autopsy" footage could have been
shot on the spot at Roswell, at Wright-Patterson, or wherever.
It is inconceivable to me that the "government photo unit" would
have documented such an important event only on 16mm. Cruddy
16mm at that. In 1947 the common newspaperman's camera was a 4x5
Speed Graphic, clumsy to use by modern standards but versatile
and great for catching closeup footage in fine detail.
Government offices also made use of Rolleiflex twin-lens
reflexes, smaller and lighter but still a bit of a job to set up
and use, especially indoors. If either one had been employed
during the so-called alien examination, it would have either been
visible on the film or the editing would have choppier (assuming
someone made some artistic judgment to edit out the still camera
setups!).
Instead the program showed long, shaky, unfocused hand-held takes
as vital cuts were made and alleged organs removed. That bugs me
too; the home-movie quality with little sign that the cameraman
knew anything about tripod use or gross specimen photo
technique.
If you've seen declassified US government footage of the
Manhattan project or Signal Corps films from WW2, you know these
cameramen knew what they were professionals, coming up with sharp
documentary images even under duress
No, "Alien Autopsy" looks like the work of someone from recent
camcorder culture - someone who had seen "Cops" a lot and thought
a 1947 autopsy film would look just like a tabloid-TV "reality
show," only on B&W.
On that basis, I judge the thing a fake. Too bad it's such a
profitable fake. Next year on Fox, watch for "Bigfoot Autopsy!"
"Nessie Autopsy!" Coming soon: "Angel Autopsy!" Someone give
Jonathan Frakes a real job, please.
As for Stan Winston and all those Hollywood special f/x artists
proclaiming the alien genuine, let's be real. This is dream-
factory tinseltown. The same place where publicists claimed that
Richard Pryor was the victim of an exploding martini and Raul
Julia just has a _minor_ illness; he'll be back on his feet any
day now. You think Stan Winston wouldn't play along with Fox's
little game? This is a network with heavy investments in sci-fi
and fantasy programs. Programs that need makeup experts. Makeup
artists who get paid plenty. I can easily believe Stan Winston
didn't want to rock the boat and miss out on potential future
jobs.
Interesting aside on the Great Phone Cord Controversy: I happened
to be at a ham radio swap meet where two old timers were laughing
over "Alien Autopsy." They actually remembered when coiled phone
cords came along - in the '50s - and recalled having to retrofit
older telephones with them, a difficult and often futile
endeavor.
"The Bagwan was merely behaving in accordance with Natural Law.
It is a violation of Natural Law to leave a Seeker in full
possession of their assets" - Robert Anton Wilson
...
.' `.
(| o o :) Charles Cassady Jr./writing wrongs each week
<`. 0 ,'> in the movie column of ARCADE/Friday
88`...88 entertainment supplement of the Morning
88 888 88 Journal of Lorain, Ohio. Statements
88888888888 contained herein do not necessarily reflect
88888888888 the views and policies of the Morning Journal
888888888 Company; actually, they're more like thinly-
8888888 disguised screams of mingled rage and pain.
8888888
8888888
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dr. John Lundy"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Telephone in Alien Autopsy
Date: 2 Nov 1995 18:23:32 GMT
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver Wa. USA
The telephone model aside, I agree with others on this thread that given
the situation, only top flight folks and equipment would have been
involved with this autopsy. In many of these videos, ie. sasquatch,etc.,
the quality is really bad. Perhaps this is intentional, to mask as best
they can the fact that these are not a video of reality. Poor quality
then covers up inconsistencies.
Having done forensic work for the Department of the Army, it has always
been my experience that they try to pull out all the stops to get you
what you need to do the best possible job. That would certainly seem the
case if you had aliens from another world!
John K. Lundy, PhD
Diplomate,American Board of Forensic Anthropology
Forensic Anthropologist, Oregon State Medical Examiner
jlundy@clark.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 02-Mar-96 09:48 AM
From: UFO Talk Mailing List \ Internet: (ufo-talk@nova.cioe.com) To:
UFO Talk Mailing List \ Internet: (ufo-talk@nova.cioe.com)
Subject: Re: S C A M
AN EXCERPT FROM:
Santilli's Controversial Autopsy Movie
A Comprehensive Review
By Kent Jeffrey
[begin excerpt]
Part of the modus operandi of the military is regimentation, discipline, and
strict adherence to prescribed procedures. That is the way it has to be.
The mission of the military demands it. Military photographers are no
exception. They receive much the same training and are subject to the same
rules and regulations as other soldiers. Dan McGovern, Bill Gibson, and Joe
Longo all viewed the alien autopsy footage, as well as photocopies of film
box labels furnished by Santilli to TF1, supposedly supplied by his
cameraman. The three former military cameramen all noted a number of
significant discrepancies -- some of which are described below -- in both
the film itself and the story behind it.
>From the standpoint of appropriate military procedures applicable at the
time and which would have definitely been followed, the scenario recounted
by Santilli's alleged cameraman makes no sense. The cameraman claims that
he was stationed in Washington, D.C., and flown on June 1, 1947, to Roswell,
New Mexico. McGovern, Gibson, and Longo point out, however, that there were
qualified cameramen with top-secret security clearances stationed at
military installations all over the country, including New Mexico. Cameramen
, both 'motion' and 'still', from a local military installation such as
Roswel or Alamagordo -- not from Washington, D.C. -- would have been
dispatched immediately to the scene.
According to Santilli, his cameraman claims that he processed the film
himself and that authorities in Washington did not bother to collect all the
reels. Our three cameramen consider this claim total nonsense. On top-
secret projects, a cameraman never, under any circumstances, processed the
film imself. Additionally, military regulations required that all film,
developed or undeveloped, had to be accounted for -- not just every reel,
but every frame of every reel. To ensure compliance, either the length of
the film on a reel was physically measured (e.g., 99 feet, 10 frames) or a
machine called a 'frame counter' was used. Furthermore, according to
Santilli's cameraman, there were only three autopsies. The footage he
allegedly kept covered a major part of one of those autopsies. On that
basis alone, it is inconceivable that the authorities overseeing the
operation would have overlooked so much missing film.
Three basic types of film were used by the military in 1947, 16mm color,
35mm black and white, and 16mm black and white. For very special or
important projects (as the autopsy of an alien would have been) 16mm color
film was used. Furthermore, McGovern, who filmed a number of autopsies, was
very positive that all medical procedures were shot in color. He also
stated that for important medical procedures, two cameras were used, both in
fixed positions. The first camera was mounted on a tripod sitting on a
'riser' (for extra elevation) adjacent to the operating or autopsy table.
The second camera was overhead, mounted on the ceiling.
Our three cameramen pointed out that a 'motion' picture cameraman would
almost always be accompanied by a 'still' photographer. The two would work
together as a team. During an autopsy, every step of the procedure would be
carefully photographed by the 'still' photographer, who would invariably be
visible in the 'motion' picture. (Medical people have also stated that
still pictures definitely would have been taken.) In the Santilli alien
autopsy film, there is no evidence whatsoever that stills were taken.
Even the technique of Santilli's cameraman, according to our three cameramen
, was inconsistent with the highly standardized procedures and methods used
by military cameramen at that time. McGovern, Gibson, and Longo are in a
position to know -- all three trained other military cameramen. All three
consider the quality of the camera work in the Santilli film appalling and,
for a myriad of reasons, not even close to meeting military standards. As
Joe Longo put it, "If anybody in my unit shot film in that manner, he'd be
back scrubbing pots in the kitchen".
According to the box label submitted by Santilli, the film used was Kodak
"High Speed Super-XX Panchromatic Safety Film." According to McGovern,
Gibson, and Longo, with a Bell and Howell Model 70 (the camera used by the
alleged cameraman), the depth of field should have been very good when using
this film. Consequently, even with the apparent mediocre lighting
conditions in the Santilli autopsy film, the picture quality should have
been excellent. Our cameramen all agreed that using the Bell and Howell
Model 70 and Super-XX film, with the focus set at 25 feet and the aperture
at F-8, under normal indoor lighting, everything from about a foot and a
half to infinity would be in focus. This should have been the case with the
Santilli film, but it obviously was not. McGovern concluded that the
Santilli film was "deliberately blurred so that no subject is visible in
detail".
McGovern, Gibson, and Longo also noted problems with the labeling on the
film box. For example, the seal with the eagle -- probably placed there to
give it an official look -- was something none of them had ever seen. In
their experience, of the thousands of boxes of film ordered by the military
from Kodak, none were stamped with seals. One of the Santilli labels reads
'Reel # 52; Truman; 85 Filter 2/3 stop; Force X 2 stop - Possible'. All
three cameramen noted that an '85 filter' was used only with color film. The
'2/3 stop' indicates the amount of light that would be blocked by the filter
and 'Force X 2 stop' indicates the amount of additional exposure time
required to compensate for the resultant loss of light. In effect, it is a
prescription for underexposing and then compensating by overdeveloping the
film -- a procedure that would unnecessarily increase the graininess and
lower the resolution of the picture.
An additional discrepancy concerning the labeling on the film box was caught
by McGovern. McGovern, who was born and received his early education in
Ireland, noticed immediately that the writing on the box was in European-
style handwriting -- something that would have been most unusual for a
cameraman who was supposedly born and raised and had spent most of his life
in Ohio.
An Offer by Colonel McGovern
Even if, despite all the previously mentioned discrepancies, business
partners Ray Santilli and Volker Spielberg submit a suitable sample of film
to Kodak and, against all expectations, the film is authenticated as 1947
vintage, it would still be necessary to authenticate the ultimate source of
the film -- the cameraman. Without the cameraman, this film is like a loose
piece of celluloid floating in the wind, not anchored to reality. No matter
how convincing, no laboratory test anywhere would in itself constitute
complete authentication of the film and what it purports to represent.
On the basis of the information that has been made available to him, Dan
McGovern, like his colleagues, Bill Gibson and Joe Longo, feels the Santilli
film is a fraud. However, McGovern is willing to keep an open mind and to
give Santilli the benefit of the doubt. Just as Kodak has offered to
authenticate the film, Colonel McGovern has offered to authenticate the
cameraman. McGovern would require the cameraman's full name and serial
number so that he could verify his military service with the Air Force
Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Colonel McGovern, a man of his word
and a man who has held a top-secret security clearance, would reveal only
his conclusion. He would keep other all information, including the
cameraman's identity, strictly confidential, revealing it to no one. The
secret of the alleged cameraman's identity would surely be safer with
McGovern, who has no axe to grind, than it would be with the two foreign
businessmen who are now supposedly aware of it and who would have much to
gain by revealing the name, since the value of their film would soar with
confirmation of the cameraman.
Aside from the cameraman's name and serial number, the only other
requirement of Colonel McGovern is that the cameraman make one 15-minute
phone call to McGovern. At the time of his retirement, McGovern was one of
the highest ranking photographic managers in the military. Considering his
experience, he is probably the most qualified person available to evaluate
the alleged cameraman. In short, authentication by him would be of extreme
value because no impostor in the world could fool Colonel Dan McGovern.
Furthermore, Santilli's alleged cameraman, who was stationed in Washington D
.C. in Jun 1947, would surely enjoy talking with McGovern because, in
addition to a common background and probable common acquaintances, they have
something else unique in common. In June 1947, Colonel Dan McGovern was a
'motion picture project officer' for the Air Force -- stationed in
Washington, D.C.
The Kodak-McGovern Challenge
Many have now charged that the 'alien autopsy' film is a fraud and the
marketing scheme surrounding it an absolute scam. It is possible, however,
to quickly and easily lay all doubt to rest, once and for all. Two very
reasonable offers of verification have been made -- Eastman Kodak to verify
the film, and Colonel McGovern the cameraman. Verification by either would
increase the monetary value of the film exponentially. Both Mr. Santilli
and Mr. Spielberg have stated unequivocally that they believe the film
genuine. If that is truly the case, they would have nothing to lose and
everything to gain by submitting the film for verification. As experienced
businessmen, they are certainly fully aware of that fact. Let them then
stand behind their word and, as any reasonable person or businessman would
do under such circumstances, accept either Kodak's offer or Colonel
McGovern's, or, preferably, both.
Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. We will almost certainly never
see the acceptance of either offer. If past actions are any indication of
future actions, as surely as the sun rises and sets, Santilli and Spielberg
will continue to make excuses, false claims, and abundant promises with
regard to authentication, but they will never follow through. They
unquestionably have little choice. To prove an article genuine, in reality,
it has to be genuine. To prove you are telling the truth, in reality, you
have to be telling the truth. One cannot deliver what does not exist. A
pattern of continually maneuvering to conceal or withhold critical evidence,
as we have seen in this case, leads only to one inescapable conclusion --
there is no cameraman and there is no film.
According to a well-known story, it was once pointed out to nineteenth
century showman and circus owner Phineas T. Barnum that customers were angry
with him because they found out after having paid their admission that the
'freaks' in his show were hoaxes. Barnum's legendary reply was that he was
not concerned about losing business because 'there's a sucker born every
minute'. Whether or not this particular anecdote is true, we should not
forget that such a mentality is widespread in today's world. Trickery and
deceit are abundant. We cannot always assume the same high standards of
honesty and integrity in others that we may exhibit ourselves or find in
those to whom we are close. The individuals who have created, marketed, and
profited from the 'alien autopsy' film are more than just aware of P. T.
Barnum's philosophy. They have put it into practice on a grand scale.
Barnum would be smiling. [end excerpt]
[http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/autopsy.html]
Could Obama's Emotionally Chaotic Family Background Make his Presidency a Disaster?
TomRoeser.com ::
-"But the question remains: How much emotional stability can accrue when you come from a mad house non-family background like his? When two fathers have abandoned you? This hasn't been reported very much."
-"Barack Obama's flabby views on the Iraq war... [are] the litmus test to show how wrongheaded Obama has been-and how his inexperience and Jimmy Carter-like timidity threaten to make his presidency a disaster."
TomRoeser.com ::
Personal Aside: Barack Obama's Chaotic Family Background Could Lead Some to Ask: Who is this Man? Does it Impact on Voters' Insecurity About Him?
Posted: 28 Jul 2008 06:31 AM PDT
Chaotic Family Background.
With the papal-style visit of the Middle East and Europe ended, Barack Obama returned to the U.S. yesterday to be greeted by a 9-point bump in Gallup-a respectable but not overwhelming edge. But probably the most definitive question confronting him ran in "The Wall Street Journal" Friday.
A WSJ-NBC News poll finds that a full 50% of all voters say they are still trying to make up their mind on what kind of president he would be. Only a quarter are viewing Sen. John McCain the same way. All of which validates what most analysts have been saying for months: (1) change is in the air and the pendulum desperately wants to swing to the Democrats but (2) Obama seems to present some major risks while (3) voters have known John McCain for many years, understand he is not an extremist and feel comfortable with him but (4) Obama is an enigma.
Writes the WSJ: "When voters were asked whether they could identify with the background and values of the two candidates, 58% said they could identify with Sen. McCain on that account while 47% said the same of Sen. Obama. More than four in 10 said the Democratic contender doesn't have value s and background they can identify with."
Small wonder. Take the chaotic jumble that is in his immediate background. He has eight half-siblings-seven of them living-by four other marriages or relationships of his parents. His father, Barack Obama, Sr.had four children by a woman he married in Kenya before his 1960 marriage to Obama's mother in Hawaii. Two of those children-son Aborigo (Roy) and daughter Auma-were born before Barack Obama, Jr.
After Obama, Sr. divorced Obama's mother in 1963, he married another American woman whom he had brought to Kenya and with whom he had two more sons-Mark and David. That marriage ended in divorce and Obama, Sr. resumed his relationship with his first wife. Obama, Sr. and they had two other sons-Abo and Bernard-although Barack, Jr. wrote in his autobiography that there is some question as to whether another man actually fathered Bernard. Then Obama, Sr. had another son, George, by a woman he was involved with but did not marry. Following which Obama's mother, the former Stanley (yes, Stanley since her father wanted a son so much he insisted she take a man's name) Ann Dunham had a daughter Maya Soetoro-Ng from a second marriage to a man named Lolo Soetoro.
Got all that?
Not surprisingly, half-brothers and half-sisters to Obama keep popping up all the time (one just surfaced to the media in China the other day). The question could be asked: what does this trick bag of half-brothers, half-sisters, illegitimate brothers and sisters who may not be related at all but sired by others do to one's stability?
We all know the emotional stress that settles on a child when one father abandons the child. What happens when TWO fathers abandon the same child, as happened with Obama? I mean Obama's mother who took husband number two, Lolo Soetoro when Obama was six. He was an Indonesian student with whom she moved to Jakarta. Obama relates in his autobiography that she was shocked to discover Soetoro was a male chauvinist. So she divorced him and sent 10-year-old Barack, Jr. to live with her parents in Honolulu while she and his half sister stayed in Indonesia. All the while Obama's polygamous natural father takes up again with his first wife, then marries another white American woman and adds a mistress, eventually fathering eight kids by four women.
Spider-web complications for genealogists and psychologists to work on for the prospective 44th president. Not exactly like George Washington marrying the widow Martha Custis, is it?
Reading the two autobiographies of this man who is 46 years old, we get a glimpse of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Obama. She has a favorite film, a 1959 Brazilian art-house classic "Black Orpheus" which she talks insatiably about. Years later while working on Wall Street, Obama goes to a theatre to see it. He realizes that his very fair-skinned mother is sexually drawn to black men. So he writes, "The emotions between the races could never be pure; even lose was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that-menacing, alien and apart."
Ben Wallace-Wells writing in "Rolling Stone" last year:
"There is an amazingly candid moment in Obama's autobiography when he writes of his childhood discomfort at the way his mother would sexualize African-American men. `More than once,' he recalls, 'my mother would point out: "Harry Belafonte is the best-looking man on the planet." What the focus groups his advisers conducted revealed was that Obama's political career now depends, in some measure, upon a tamer version of this same feeling, on the complicated dynamics of how white women respond to a charismatic black man.'"
Op Ed writer Roger Cohen in "The New York Times" earlier this year wrote from Brussels: "So there I was, a couple of weeks back, sitting under a mango tree in western Kenya when Sen. Barack Obama's half-sister Aune says to me: `My daughter's father is British. My mom's brother is married to a Russian. I have a brother in China engaged to a Chinese woman.'" Cohen adds he understands this half brother living in China is named Mark-the son of Obama's father. But all this is good news if Obama becomes president.
Why?
Cohen exults: "If elected, Obama would be the first genuinely 21st century leader. The China-Indonesia-Kenya-Britain-Hawaii web mirrors a world in flux. In Kenya, his uncle Sayid, a Muslim told me: `My Islam is a hybrid, a mix of elements including my Christian schooling and even some African ways. Many values have dissolved in me.'"
How thrilling. And how revelatory of the man his half sister Auma spoke of to writer Cohen during Obama's second trip to Kenya:
"He was trying to figure out who he was. He needed to be whole to be able to do what he's doing now. He went about it in the right way. A big chunk of his life was missing. It's very healthy that he now knows he has these roots here."
But as he himself wrote, on his first trip to Kenya two decades ago he met a woman named Ruth in Nairobi, whom he described as "a white woman with a long jaw and graying hair."
Who was she? She was a woman who divorced Obama's father, remarried and gave the family name of her second husband to her two sons by Obama, Sr. In his book she asks Obama bluntly:
"But your mother remarried. I wonder why she had you keep your name?"
Good question. But only one of many. This jumble, this crazy-quilt of divorces, illegitimate births, mistresses and a potential president having been abandoned by two fathers in a row may lead even more voters to be doubtful when it comes out (as it hasn't to any substantial degree yet). Even now there's enough doubt to understand why in the new WSJ/NBC poll by a 55% to 35% margin voters are more likely to say that Obama would be the riskier choice. Not only are his views opaque but his very background is... as Churchill described the USSR... an enigma, wrapped in a mystery bound up in a riddle.
Odds are even my bringing up this chaotic background will be assailed as "unfair" even "racist." That's standard operating procedure for Obama's aficionados. You can't criticize anything about him... his wife, his religion, the size of his ears, his announcing that he has traveled to all 57 states in the Union, his statement that Israel is Israel's best friend (which had McCain said this would be written widely as an example of a senior moment). Now they will howl it's unfair to report his murky, very murky, familial past.
But the question remains: How much emotional stability can accrue when you come from a mad house non-family background like his? When two fathers have abandoned you? This hasn't been reported very much.
Well I just did.
Personal Aside: "The Great One" Speaks in Berlin... but Back Home Obama's Iraq Views are Seen as Pompously Wrongheaded.
Posted: 25 Jul 2008 07:29 AM PDT
He may cause emotional kids and idealistic old ladies in audiences to swoon, but Barack Obama's flabby views on the Iraq war will likely do him in. More than any other issue, McCain is right to make Iraq... even though it's an unpopular war... as the litmus test to show how wrongheaded Obama has been-and how his inexperience and Jimmy Carter-like timidity threaten to make his presidency a disaster. Already polls are showing that Obama is not getting his "bounce" from the ecstatically immature mainstream media camp followers.
Small wonder. The American people are wary of this con-man rhetorician... inflated as if by a bicycle pump manned by David Axelrod with the help of Big Foot media.
Several points.
In the long view of history, President George W. Bush will go down as the true great one... ranking with Harry Truman... on the issue of seizing the moment to launch an effort that will defeat our enemies.
From the very start, on September 12, 2001, Bush understood a new existential threat to our safety made clear the necessity for interventionism. He understood immediately that the ground-rules had changed. The end of U.S. foreign policy was still the security of the United States but to do this-as John Kennedy had said of the Cold War-it is imperative to achieve "the success of liberty." Bush saw intuitively-brilliantly-that while we will support democracy everywhere, we will commit blood and treasure only where there is a strategic urgency. Because he understood al Qaeda was behind the attack, he saw the U.S. had no choice but to go to war in Afghanistan. Secondarily, he saw that the Saddam regime posed a great threat to the region. Thirdly he saw farsightedly the fact that a self-sustaining democracy in Iraq would be a major first step in draining the swamp of the poisonous political culture... composed of intolerance and religious fanaticism... that spawned anti-American extremism which produced 9/11. On all these elements, John McCain was with President Bush. In fact, he was ahead of him-pointing out the initial insufficiency of our efforts in Iraq, calling for the replacement of Donald Rumsfeld and anticipating the surge which the president later implemented.
In contrast to this, the views of Barack Obama have been shriveled and amateurish. So wrongheaded that for the second time in U.S. history, by making the winning of an unpopular war key, the Republicans may well retain the White House. The first time came when the American people became convinced that though he was running an unpopular war, Abraham Lincoln was on the track to victory. Lincoln won despite the fact that he was running against a supposedly well-versed general who at two points had commanded federal forces in that war and who vociferously criticized its conduct--Gen. George C. McClellan.
McClellan's views on the war roughly parallel Barack Obama's. McClellan never completely saw victory in the war as essential-but only the ending of it. But Obama far exceeds McClellan in his error-prone views of the war and his failure to understand the value of winning a war so as to bring stability.
Initially... and from the time he entered the presidential race... Obama first urged total withdrawal as quickly as the troops could be pulled out and then said he would order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to withdraw within 16 months. That college prof assessment was grievously wrong. As even "The New York Times'" said when he first made this statement as a presidential candidate and talked about precipitate withdrawal, "Iraq and the region around it could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the [American] invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate."
In October, 2006-three months before the surge was announced-this is what Obama said: "It is clear at this point that we cannot, though putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."
The night before the surge was announced, Jan. 10, 2007, Obama said: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact I think it will do the reverse."
On Jan. 17, 2007: "The surge strategy will not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." That July despite evidence the surge was succeeding, he said: "My assessment is that the surg/e has not worked." Now-just yesterday-- even the anti-Iraq war newspaper "USA TODAY" said: "Why can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he would be?"
I'll tell you what it says. Had we pulled troops out of Iraq when Obama first urged us to do so, the Iraqi army that went into Basra and achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years-capture the city, drive out the insurgents and seize the vital ports from the Iranian-backed militias would not have been successful and probably could not have attempted to do it: thus the earlier expenditure of U. S. lives and treasure would have been in vain.
Without any U. S. ground forces to instill morale, the Iraqi army could not have entered and occupied Sadr Citry, the Mahdi army stronghold.
With a retreating-or departing U. S. presence--the Iraqi parliament could not have enacted its de-Baathification law which under-girds its political stability.
Obama's continued refusal to acknowledge the value of the surge and his insistence that stability in Iraq is dependent on a time-table means that with his election this country would forfeit every success and substitute for it the aura of defeatism inculcated unconditional withdrawal. There is no doubt that there is not a U.S. commander in the field who supports his strategy. Moreover while the media play the fact that Premier Maliki would support a withdrawal of U.S.forces by 2010, they do not focus on the fact that it was CONDITIONED ON THE READINESS OF IRAQI FORCES and that MALIKI'S TIMETABLE WOULD EXPAND OBAMA'S BY AT LEAST SEVEN MONTHS.
The reason Obama cannot admit the surge worked nor alter his views of withdrawal is that he sees his campaign owned on national defense policies by the Democratic party's far-left contingent. Thus a candidate who (a) cannot appreciate the need to stabilize the Middle East, who (b) wrong-headedly denied the efficacy of the surge and (c) avoids the flexibility of judgment mandatory in the president on Iraq proves that this young man is immature, unready and not nearly at the stage of maturity the nation demands in a president.
What McCain should do is continue to drive this point home. The David Axelrod campaign surge in Berlin and with photo ops of his candidate with U.S. generals has not comforted the American people who are realizing that what we have here is a very, very egotistical young man without even the beginnings of maturity that were contained in John Kennedy, age 43, in 1960. Obama is a man who in three and a half years in the Senate has a record that is barren of accomplishment. As a law professor and Harvard Law Review president he has not propounded a single idea that is worthy of enunciation. As a state senator he was noteworthy for not lifting a finger to improve his poverty-stricken inner city district.
The scandalously biased national media puff job employs a bicycle pump to puff him to the heroic stature of world citizen, like the displays toted down the street in a Macy's Thanksgiving day parade... held to earth by moorings-but now the helium gas is seeping... pfffffft!... shortly to reveal little more than an empty suit.
You are subscribed to email updates from TomRoeser.com ::
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
