Search - Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction? on DVD

See it, but don't expect an answer

Lucius | northeast | 05/29/2005

(4 out of 5 stars)

"If you happened to see this "documentary" when it first aired on FOX and were aware of the controversy that swirled around it, then there is nothing new here. If you didn't, and you happen to be a UFO buff, then you must see this despite the constroversy.

Is it a hoaxed "recreation" or an actual autopsy? There's no way to know. Awkward camera angles? Who cares. Period "prop" pieces or what happened to be in the room at the time? There's no way to know. Incredibly complex human-like dummy or actual cadaver? Who knows. Human with an exceedingly rare disfiguring genetic condition, or recovered alien body? Who knows. If it is a human, then why no recognizable internal organs? If alien, why the humanoid physiognomy?

Either this is the rarest, paradigm busting, ground-shaking footage ever released, or it is a cash cow for some unknown hoaxers. Either way, there's nothing else that even comes close to this seeming "holy grail" of ufology."

A well-made documentary about a highly suspect film

Daniel Jolley | Shelby, North Carolina USA | 07/16/2004

(5 out of 5 stars)

"In the mid-1990s, the release of the purported 1947 alien autopsy film footage divided the UFO community (which was probably the whole point) and generated a lot of attention nationwide, attention which Fox quickly made us of in the production of this documentary concerning the film. A majority of interested parties viewed the film with great suspicion early on and rather quickly came to the conclusion that it was a hoax, but the great believability of the film's nature allowed many to look upon it as authentic. Combine this with the similar debate over the alleged MJ-12 documents, for both seem to be interconnected in my mind, and you have the makings of one of two things: definite smoking guns or else dangerous sources of disinformation. Whatever you believe, the alien autopsy footage itself is still fascinating to watch, and this video does an excellent job of presenting the evidence in a fair and balanced manner.The video, hosted by Jonathan Frakes, begins by touching upon the history of the Roswell incident in 1947, featuring interviews with such well-known witnesses as Walter Haut, the public relations officer at Roswell Army Air Base, Dr. Jesse Marcel, the son of the man who first examined the wreckage and brought some of the evidence home to show his wife and son before returning with it to the base, and other Roswell eyewitnesses. It then features Ray Santilli giving his story on the finding of this alien autopsy footage - this includes much of the information that makes the story such a dubious one. Then it shows a number of scenes from the alien autopsy itself - you will not find the complete autopsy film itself here in its entirety, however. Then you get the opinions of assorted experts. Film specialists are asked if the film could have been made in 1947 (although the fact that Kodak was given film samples outside of what you find in the autopsy film is not mentioned), a World War II cameraman is asked to comment on the troublesome habit of the film going in and out of focus a great deal, medical experts including Dr. Cyril Wecht are asked to give their opinion on the medical aspects of what they are seeing in the film, and special effects experts such as Stan Winston are asked for their impressions of authenticity. This FOX TV special did not go hip deep into the evidence, unfortunately, but it did indeed leave the final answer to the film's authenticity up to the viewer. It gave equal time to those who think the footage is authentic and those who brand it a hoax for a number of different reasons. Finally, the video features new film reportedly taken of some of the UFO wreckage from Roswell; this, to me, is even more dubious than the autopsy film. Personally, I think this film and the MJ-12 documents that a few ufologists continue to defend in such a personal manner are deliberate sources of disinformation intended to divert and weaken the UFO community. In any event, though, this particular documentary represents an excellent presentation of the autopsy film evidence and the debate over its authenticity back in 1995."

Not real but fun to watch

George R. Gifford | USA | 01/05/2007

(2 out of 5 stars)

"Twenty years ago I was a Motion Picture Specialist in the US Marine Corps. There are rules for documenting high profile and secret events and situations. Specifically you lock your camera down on a tripod with the best angle of view to the subject as possible. You hold the shot and always work toward clarity.

Had this been a visual documentation of such an event the protocol would have been to cover everything as steadily, clearly and in focus at all times. Handheld or on tripod. There would have been no shaky or out of focus camera work and each "organ part" would have been carefully and clearly presented to the camera (multiple cameras would have been likely had this been a real event) for documentation and future study. Camera guys back then we far better at hand held filming than any non-feature film operator today. There was a lot of discipline involved when shooting handheld back then. The camera work in the Autopsy video was clearly shot to make it hard to see what was happening on the operating table. The exact opposite of what would have happened had such an event taken place.

I'm a civilian now and I do a lot of operating theater video work with surgeons. They have always been more than helpful in providing the camera with a clean clear shot of whatever procedure I'm filming. Military officers doubly so as they understand the importance of proper documentation.

BTW, during the visual documentation of something as important as the discovery of an alien life form there would assuredly be not only multiple film cameras but still photographers using large format film as well. Lastly, the motion picture camera and film would have been color 35mm not black and white 16mm.

I'm a Jonathan Frakes fan so I say buy it so he gets his royalty check besides it's a hoot to watch but please don't try to pretend it's real.
"

Skeptic

I. Mcintyre | nEW zEALAND | 02/27/2005

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Well you are pretty much left to make up your own mind.
The footage is archived very well and all the instruments seem to be within the 1947 period. But the camera mans inability to get the best shot when the surgeon is sawing open the head starts to give the footage away as being a hoax.
But why put together such good footage then do something like unprofessional camera work.
A navy camera man backs up the conclusion as to why the camera man doesnt get the best shot. But i'm still skeptical because the camera man could have stood on the other side of the surgery table and recorded the cutting of the head or the cutting open of the body. Instead he moves in to close and the picture goes fuzzy as they are hiding something. Why doesnt he stand back the image would then not be distorted. It seems strange to put together some really good footage and then when it comes to the best shots the image becomes blurry."