BOOK REVIEW

Alien Autopsy Inquest
by Philip Mantle (2007)
(published by PublishAmerica, www.publishamerica.com, also available from Amazon.com)

Review by Kathy Kasten

 

“Is it the good turtle soup or merely the mock?”
- Cole Porter, “At Long Last Love”

In Alien Autopsy Inquest, Philip Mantle takes the reader along for the ride through the behind the scenes mechanics of how the now famous Alien Autopsy film (AA) made it to its first public viewing. The material in the book is presented as “evidence.” As if the Alien Autopsy is on trial and Mantle is presenting the “case.” Challenges are addressed that emerged after the showing of AA in 1995 and caused a firestorm. 

Many may remember how the “images” from AA were available on the internet almost immediately after the showing at the London Museum by Mantle and Ray Santilli - source and promoter of AA. It was THE “hot property” and any ufologist worth his reputation wanted in on the excitement of the meaning of an extraterrestrial autopsy; proof at last that “they” existed. Mantle document’s the major players in their own words. Of course, many people who followed the “case” know that Mantle was one of the major players early on. Therefore, the reader is party to the insider/behind the scenes conversations. 

Many of those conversations relate to deals between Bob Kiviat and Ray Santilli for the presentation of Fox TV’s “Alien Autopsy - Fact or Fiction.” That program introduced a very large North American TV audience to the “autopsy.” Soon after that major network showing, many other media outlets around the world took up the cause of AA. After which, the firestorm mounted in fury, as it seems everybody in ufology had an opinion. Even the general public got in on the game.

As the game heated up, there were late night phone conversations between Mantle and other ufologists, sometimes lasting hours, spanning the globe. At continental and intercontinental UFO conferences, there were hallway and local pub meetings where the subject was discussed. The reader is taken along on those trips as the dying subject of UFOs starts to become revived once again.

The book is divided into categories of “expert” opinions: camera equipment, an interview with the “cameraman,” medical professionals, FX/movie recreation experts, ufologists. The FX people entered the fray after AA was shown on TV. One group spent time reproducing a dummy that matched the “alien” in AA. (Photos are provided in the book. To this reader, the FX recreation looks to be a duplicate.) 

Some ufology investigators were able to provide Mantle with opinions from medical professionals regarding whether the “autopsy” was real or not. Mantle provides both sides of that approach - those that thought it was a deformed human and those claiming the body didn’t look human - with or without the implication of whether the doctor thought the body was that of an ET. This implication is on shaky ground because we do not know - and sometimes neither does Mantle - the context of the questions asked of the medical professionals. There were those pathologists who thought the autopsy followed “normal” procedures and those who wondered why an event like autopsying an ET was so rushed and noted that not much time was spent carefully examining the tissue before removal from the body.  

Much of this testimony is provided second and third hand. Although the various medical institutions are named, we do not know exactly what questions were asked of the medical professionals. Some of the reports come through ufologists who solicited comments after the medical professionals viewed AA. Although throughout the chapter documenting the medical opinions, Mantle shares with the reader the comments of medical professionals he contacted directly in England, sometimes quoting their own words.  There doesn’t seem to be a consensus.

One of the major issues of inquiry was the identification of the “cameraman.”  Supposedly, this “military” man was flown from Washington, D.C. to New Mexico and Fort Worth, Texas on the orders of top Washington brass. After a couple of hits and misses of trying to set up a face-to-face interview with the “cameraman” through Santilli, Mantle lost out to Fuji TV - a Japanese television station. Ray Santilli setup the interview, and had Bob Kiviat (an American TV program producer of the Fox TV program: “Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction”) write up the questions. It was claimed by Ray Santilli that the questions were passed - through Ray Santilli - to an unnamed interviewer/video crew. 

Mantle provides a photo of the AA “cameraman” downloaded off the Fuji TV video, published it in his book and asks the public’s to help in identify the man. Some bothersome issues on this aspect of Mantle’s case is that there is no discussion as to whether anybody was asked to sign affidavits regarding the truth and verification of the face being interviewed or any other important issues regarding the “cameraman” interview. We never knew the name of the video company, who was in charge of the video crew, where the “cameraman” interview took place, no date, and no time of day. Nothing is pinned down. In the mind of this reader, Santilli has got to be the sloppiest businessman or the shrewdest. 

The only testimony provided by Mantle that caused this reader’s eyes to glaze over was that of the camera experts: detailed, specific data, necessary to help determine the authenticity of the AA film will be appreciated by camera buffs. However, my reaction to this chapter could be equated with sitting through the testimony of DNA experts at the O.J. Simpson trial. It is important to the case for AA, but difficult to sit through. To be fair, the reader is asked to read through at least 14 different camera expert's reports.  The different reports are not set off in any marked way. Therefore, it is difficult to follow whether it is Mantle’s voice addressing something one of the experts is stating or Mantle’s own opinion on the matter.

Mantle’s has contacts throughout the world of ufology (he is head of the British UFO Research Association - BUFOA).  As a consequence, some new information about a possible extraterrestrial event (meteorite or something else) surfaced as part of the investigation into the “crash site/autopsy site.” Based on sketches, supplied (through Santilli from the “cameraman”) to two field teams tried to find the “crash site/autopsy site.” Michael Hesemann (German UFO investigator) and Bob Shell (American camera expert and ufologist) formed one team. Shell lives in New Mexico where the site was supposedly located. Hesemann decided they had found the site based on what he thought was a chipped stone gouge at the bottom of a cliff. Shell claims that the spot at the base of the cliff is used by families camping and the cliff is chipped because it is a favorite place for rock climbers to practice.  Nothing special is located there. 

The second team was comprised of Ed Gehrman and Wendy Connors (two American, long time UFO investigators, who also live in New Mexico). They followed the same sketch and description but arrived at a different site. It is this site which contains some anomalies and their suggestion is that more investigations should be done. The “damage” to the area ties in with Hesemann’s reports from a couple of local tribe members to something flying overhead and crashing in June of 1947. The “damage” suggests tree top burning only. Usually burn damage is repaired after 60 years. Therefore, if the burn damage is still visible, one has to wonder what caused this mostly permanent condition.

The book ends with some starling revelations. I am not going to spoil it by discussing … for now . . . the ending to the case and summation of the evidence. As Mantle states: “stay tuned.” When Santilli is involved in a project it means he is waiting for just the right moment to spring another surprise on the public.

WHAT WOULD THIS BOOK REVIEW BE WITHOUT MY OWN STORY?
At the time stills of AA were available on-line, I worked in the University of California-Los Angeles’ Department of Pathology and knew the Chief of the autopsy section. (The individual no longer works at UCLA.) After showing the stills around to the Chief and a couple of techs (people who daily perform autopsies at a teaching hospital) I think I remember their comments - in part at least.  They declared it was a photo of a pregnant teenage female with a rare, but not unheard of physical condition. I don’t remember the name of the condition. I do remember they were appalled by what they determined was using the poor female body in a snuff film. 

One of the clues for them was that the “autopsy room” did not contain the appropriate instruments used by professional pathologists. Not of their caliber, anyway. No one thought the body was fake; just the environment did not seem professional. It seemed to be a set-up pretending to be an autopsy room, the way non-pros would think it should look. Especially, if the object was to create snuff-like, gory, shock value images.

When I posted their opinion on-line, I basically got hate mail responses; some challenging UCLA’s department ability to make a judgment call. Some even accused me of being a government plant. Although my e-mail address clearly identified the fact that I worked in UCLA’s Pathology Department. Soon after the furor died down, it was suggested to the Chief that she move on. She took a position at a prestigious university on the east coast. I became concerned that I somehow had caused her to be asked to leave.  She assured me that it was not.

Later, I discovered that she had been unwilling to participate in the department’s selling body parts to people willing to pay top dollars. The resulting legal problems for UCLA were documented in articles published in the Los Angeles Times. One of the e-mails I received came was from someone who knew that UCLA was involved in the sale of body parts. How that person knew before most of the staff in the department? I have no idea. Just more weirdness surrounding the “Alien Autopsy.” P