Real-Life X-Files

by Joe Nickell

  Interestingly, the film failed to agree with earlier purported eyewitness testimony about the alleged autopsy. For example, multiple medical informants described the Roswell creatures as lacking ears and having only four fingers with no thumb (Berlitz and Moore 1980), whereas the autopsy film depicts a creature with small ears and five fingers in addition to a thumb. Ergo, either the previous informants are hoaxers, or the film is a hoax, or both.

  Although the film was supposedly authenticated by Kodak, only the leader tape and a single frame were submitted for examination, not the entire footage. In fact, a Kodak spokesman told the Sunday Times of London: “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.”

  Various objections to the film’s authenticity came from journalists, UFO researchers, and scientists who viewed the film. They noted that it bore a bogus, nonmilitary code mark (“Restricted access, AO1 classification”) that disappeared after it was criticized; that the anonymous photographer’s alleged military status had not been verified; and that the injuries sustained by the extraterrestrial were inconsistent with an air crash. On the basis of such objections, an article in the Sunday Times of London advised: “RELAX. The little green men have not landed. A much-hyped film purporting to prove that aliens had arrived on earth is a hoax” (Chittenden 1995).

  Figure 41.1. Scene from “Alien Autopsy” television program purports to show the postmortem of an extraterrestrial being from the Roswell “UFO crash.”

  Similar opinions on the film came even from prominent Roswell-crash partisans: Kent Jeffrey, an associate of the Center for UFO Studies and author of the “Roswell Declaration” (a call for an executive order to declassify any United States government information on UFOs and alien intelligence) stated “up front and unequivocally there is no (zero!!!) doubt in my mind that this film is a fraud” (1995). Even arch Roswell promoter Stanton T. Friedman said, “I saw nothing to indicate the footage came from the Roswell incident, or any other UFO incident for that matter” ( “Alien or Fake?” 1995).

  Still other critics found many inconsistencies and suspicious elements in the alleged autopsy. For example, in one scene the “doctors” wore white, hooded anticontamination suits that could have been neither for protection from radiation (elsewhere the personnel are examining an alien body without such suits), nor for protection from the odor of decay nor from unknown bacteria or viruses (either would have required some type of breathing apparatus). Thus it appears that the outfits served no purpose except to conceal the “doctors”’ identities. American pathologists offered still more negative observations. Cyril Wecht, former president of the National Association of Forensic Pathologists, seemed credulous but described the viscera in terms that might apply to supermarket meat scraps and sponges: “I cannot relate these structures to abdominal contexts.” Again, he said about contents of the cranial area being removed, “This is a structure that must be the brain, if it is a human being. It looks like no brain that I have ever seen, whether it is a brain filled with a tumor, a brain that has been radiated, a brain that has been traumatized and is hemorragic.” (Wecht 1995). Much more critical was the assessment of nationally known pathologist Dominick Demaio, who described the autopsy on television’s American Journal (1995): “I would say it’s a lot of bull.” Houston pathologist Ed Uthman (1995) was also bothered by the unrealistic viscera, stating, “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.” As well, “the prosectors did not make an attempt to arrange the organs for demonstration for the camera.” Uthman also observed that there was no body block, a basic piece of equipment used to prop up the trunk for examination and the head for brain removal. He also pointed out that “the prosector used scissors like a tailor, not like a pathologist or surgeon” (pathologists and surgeons place the middle or ring finger in the bottom scissors hole and use the forefinger to steady the scissors near the blades). Uthman further noted that “the initial cuts in the skin were made a little too Hollywood-like, too gingerly, like operating on a living patient,” whereas autopsy incisions are made faster and deeper. Uthman faulted the film for lacking what he aptly termed “technical verisimilitude.”

  The degree of realism in the film has been debated, even by those who believe the film is a hoax. Some, like Kent Jeffrey (1995), thought the autopsy was done on a specially altered human corpse. On the other hand, many—including movie special-effects experts—believed a dummy had been used. One suspicious point in that regard was that significant close-up views of the creature’s internal organs were consistently out of focus (“Alien or Fake?” 1995). American Journal (1995) also featured a special effects expert who doubted the films authenticity and demonstrated how the autopsy “incisions”—which left a line of “blood” as the scalpel was drawn across the alien’s skin—could easily have been faked. (The secret went unexplained but probably consisted of a tube fastened to the far side of the blade.)

  In contrast to the somewhat credulous response of a Hollywood special effects filmmaker on the Fox program, British expert Cliff Wallace of Creature Effects provided the following assessment:

  None of us were of the opinion that we were watching a real alien autopsy, or an autopsy on a mutated human, which has also been suggested. We all agreed that what we were seeing was a very good fake body, a large proportion of which had been based on a lifecast. Although the nature of the film obscured many of the things we had hoped to see, we felt that the general posture and weighting of the corpse was incorrect for a body in a prone position and had more in common with a cast that had been taken in an upright position.

  We did notice evidence of a possible molding seam line down an arm in one segment of the film but were generally surprised that there was little other evidence of seaming, which suggests a high degree of workmanship.

  We felt that the filming was done in such a way as to obscure details rather than highlight them and that many of the parts of the autopsy that would have been difficult to fake, for example the folding back of the chest flaps, were avoided, as was anything but the most cursory of limb movement. We were also pretty unconvinced by the lone removal sequence. In our opinion the insides of the creature did not bear much relation to the exterior, where muscle and bone shapes can be easily discerned. We all agreed that the filming of the sequence would require either the use of two separate bodies, one with chest open, one with chest closed, or significant redressing of one mortal. Either way the processes involved are fairly complicated and require a high level of specialized knowledge.

  Another expert, Trey Stokes—a Hollywood special effects “motion designer,” whose film credits include The Abyss, The Blob, Robocop Two, Batman Returns, Gremlins II, Tales from the Crypt, and many others—provided an independent analysis at CSICOP’s request. Interestingly, Stokes’s critique also indicated that the alien figure was a dummy cast in an upright position. He further noted that it seemed lightweight and “rubbery,” that it therefore moved unnaturally when handled, especially in one shot in which “the shoulder and upper arm actually are floating rigidly above the table surface, rather than sagging back against it” as would be expected (Stokes 1995).

  CSICOP staffers (Executive Director Barry Karr, Skeptical Inquirer Assistant Editor Tom Genoni Jr., and I) monitored developments in the case. Before the film aired, CSICOP issued a press release, briefly summarizing the evidence against authenticity and quoting CSICOP Chairman Paul Kurtz as saying, “The Roswell myth should be permitted to die a deserved death. Whether or not we are alone in the universe will have to be decided on the basis of better evidence than that provided by the latest bit of Roswell fakery. Television executives have a responsibility not to confuse programs designed for entertainment with news documentaries.”
r />   References

  Alien or fake? 1995. Sheffield Star (England), Aug. 18.

  American Journal.1995. Sept. 6.

  Berlitz, Charles, and William L. Moore. 1980. The Roswell Incident. New York: Grosset and Dunlap.

  Chittenden, Maurice. 1995. Film that “proves” aliens visited earth is a hoax. The Sunday Times of London, July 30.

  Clark, Jerome. 1993. “UFO Hoaxes.” In Encyclopedia of Hoaxes, ed. by Gordon Stein, 267-78. Detroit: Gale Research.

  Jeffrey, Kent. 1995. Bulletin 2: The purported 1947 Roswell film, http:// ds.dial.pipex.com/ritson/scispi/roswell/london.htm, May 26.

  Kurtz, Paul. 1995. Quoted in CSICOP press release, “Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?” film a hoax concludes scientific organization. April 25.

  Stokes, Trey. 1995. Personal communication, Aug. 29–31.

  Stringfield, Leonard, H. 1977. Situation Red: The UFO Siege. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 84,177–79.

  Thomas, Dave. 1995. The Roswell incident and Project Mogul. Skeptical Inquirer 19(4) (July–Aug.): 15–18.

  Uthman, Ed. 1995. “Fox’s ‘Alien Autopsy’: A Pathologist’s View,” http:// www.neosoft.com/~uthman/rants/on_alien_autopsy.html, Sept. 15.

  Wallace, Cliff. 1995. Letter to Union Pictures, Aug. 3, quoted in Wallace–s letter to Graham Birdsall, UFO Magazine, Aug. 16, quoted on ParaNet newsgroup, Aug. 22.

  Wecht, Cyril. 1995. Quoted on “Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?” Fox Network, Aug. 28 and Sept. 4.

  Chapter 42

  Spirit Paintings

  During the heyday of spiritualism, among the “physical phenomena” commonly manifested were so-called spirit paintings. These were portraits and other artworks, done in various media and produced under a variety of conditions but always ascribed to spirit entities. During 1998 and1999, I was able to examine several of these at Lily Dale, the western New York spiritualist colony, and to thereby shed light on some century-old mysteries.

  Full-fledged spirit paintings, often portraits of the dearly departed, were typically rather elaborate renderings in oils or pastels. Although looking for all the world like artworks done by professionals, they were produced under remarkable conditions: for example, during a short period of time, in complete or near darkness, etc. The most famous spirit-painting mediums were the Bangs sisters (discussed in the next chapter) and the Campbell brothers (discussed in this chapter).

  Although there are myriad discussions of spirit painting (e.g., Coates 1911; Carrington 1920; Mulholland 1938), I have come across no real history of the alleged phenomenon and nothing to establish its origin or chronicle its development. The following few paragraphs are my attempt to fill this void.

  Soon after modern spiritualism began in 1848 with the spirit rappings of the Fox sisters (who confessed their trickery four decades later), spirit pictures began to appear in a very simple form. The earliest ones of which I am aware were drawings produced as an extension of “automatic” writing, whereby messages were supposedly dictated by otherworldly entities or the mediums hand was allegedly guided by them. For example, in 1851 John Murray Spear (b. 1804) produced séance writings and “also geometrical drawings and strange unintelligible figures, of which no interpretation was vouchsafed” (Podmore 1902, 1:216). In the mid 1860s, a Glasgow cabinetmaker and spiritualist named David Duguid (1832–1907) began painting small landscapes while being observed, according to psychical investigator Frank Podmore (1902,II:130), “apparently in deep trance, and with his eyes apparently closed”—emphasis on the word apparently. Podmore (1902, II:131) was “disposed to regard Duguid’s trance utterances as probably not involving conscious deception,” but his later mediumistic demonstrations are another matter. Magician John Mulholland in his Beware Familiar Spirits (1938, 158), says Duguid was among the mediums who employed “simple substitution of painted for unpainted cards.”

  After the debut of slate writing—a phenomenon claimed to have been “discovered” by Dr. Henry Slade—spirit drawings also began to appear, sometimes accompanying writing, sometimes separately. Like the messages, these drawings could be made with a simple slate pencil, but more ornate ones were rendered with colored chalks or paints. The slate effects were created under conditions that supposedly precluded trickery, thereby seeming to prove they were authentic spirit productions. In fact, however, they were easily produced by a variety of conjuring techniques, and mediums were repeatedly caught faking the phenomena (Houdini 1924).

  Although spirit painting is distinct from spirit photography, there was actually some overlap. Interestingly, early photographic techniques—daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, etc.—did not yield spirit portraits; those awaited the advent of glass-plate negatives, which facilitated double exposures. After spirit photography became established in 1862 (by Bostonian William H. Mumler)painted portraits or other artworks obviously served on occasion as the basis for photographed spirit “extras.”13 Some mediumistic photographers produced photo images with artistically added “veils,” “shrouds,” and other funereal trappings (see examples in Permut 1988). And David Duguid expanded his repertoire from spirit paintings to spirit photographs and even “psychographs” (supposedly noncamera spirit or psychic photos) (Coates 1911, 65). One way the latter were produced involved using seemingly unprepared paper that actually contained a chemically bleached-out image. At the appropriate time, the paper would be secretly pressed against a blotter dampened with a developing solution (Carrington1920, 220–21).

  At Lily Dale, I was able to examine several pictures by the Campbell brothers—or I should say, “brothers,” since they were unrelated. (According to my sources at Lily Dale, they were a gay couple in a time when differences in sexual orientation were less tolerated.) They were Allan B. Campbell (1833–1919) and Charles “Campbell” (born Charles Shourds, who died August 23, 1926). They lived at Lily Dale but traveled widely, reportedly making twenty-two trips to Europe. Their mediumship in volvedslate writing and spirit typewriting (produced in a portable cabinet), but they are best known for their spirit portraits and paintings (“Campbell Brothers” n.d.).

  The Campbells’ “spirit” artists produced pastel and oil portraits. I inspected examples of both with an illuminated 10X loupe (a small magnifier used especially by jewelers and watchmakers) and found them indistinguishable from works produced by the human hand. Some writers claim the pictures “have no brush marks” (Jackson 1975). That is true of the pastels, which were of course done without brushes or paints and which in fact have the characteristics of pastel drawings. The oil paintings do indeed have brush marks, which may easily be found by the use of oblique light—a technique used to enhance surface irregularities (Nickell 1999).

  One of the oils is a striking forty-by-sixty-inch painting of Allan Campbell’s alleged spirit guide, Azur (figure 42.1). It was produced on June 15, 1898, in a single sitting lasting only an hour and a half. In a signed statement, six witnesses (all of them apparently spiritualists, some of themprominent) described the conditions under which the picture was produced:

  On the evening mentioned we met at the cottage of the Campbell Brothers on the hill and proceeded to their Egyptian séance room. Across the bay window at the end of the room was hung a large silk curtain, where stood a small table and a canvas 40 × 60.” Each one in turn went up to the canvas and magnetized it by passing his hands over the surface. We then placed whatever marks we pleased on the back, some placing names, some numbers, some marks to suit their fancy. Mr. A. Campbell then invited one of the circle to sit with him in the impromptu cabinet and the silken curtain enclosing them; each member of the circle in turn sat within the cabinet with Mr. Campbell. Every time the curtain was withdrawn we saw the partly finished picture of Azur. During thee ntire séance there was light enough for us to see everything perfectly and note the gradual growth of the painting on the canvas. Mr. A. Campbell was entranced and Azur, using his organism, gave us some very beautiful words of welcome and lessons of a high order. He spoke of the stars and their significance, whi
ch we fully realized afterwards.

  Figure 42.1. “Spirit” painting, Azur; produced in stages during an 1898 séance (exhibited at the Maplewood Hotel, Lily Dale).

  After some music, additional lights were brought, the curtain withdrawn, and lo! The picture was complete. It represented Azur with arms uplifted as in the act of speaking and fully life size. While we were admiring it, there came at the back of the head a six-pointed star, which is now distinctly seen (Prendergast et al. 1989).

  One notes that the picture was only observed in stages, but how was it done under the conditions described (assuming them to be true) and in so short a time for a large oil painting? To begin an answer we turn to Here ward Carrington (1920, 222) who describes the two major techniques used for spirit paintings rendered in oils:

  One method is for the medium to take an ordinary oil-painting, as fresh as possible (so long as the oil is quite dry), and over this lightly gum, around the edges, another piece of blank canvas, seeing to it that it looks neat at the edges. Now, as soon as the medium is alone in the cabinet, he carefully peels off this outside piece of canvas, secreting it about his person, and exposing the under canvas (the one upon which is the painting) to view. In order to produce the impression of the painting still being wet, he quickly rubs over the painting with poppy-oil, and there is your spirit painting!

  The second method Carrington describes as a “chemical means,” but that is something of a misnomer. As he explains: “The oil-painting in this case is first varnished, and, after this is thoroughly dry, it is covered with a solution of water and Czinc white.’ The canvas will now have the appearance of being blank, and may be inspected. All the medium has to do, in order to restore the painting, is to wash over the canvas with a wet sponge, when the painting will appear as before.” In the second technique, the zinc white might be sponged off incrementally so that the picture seems to develop in stages. And it would be appropriately damp when brought forth (Gibson 1967). With either method employed, the sitters’ placing their names and other identifying marks on the back of the canvas to prevent substitution—a common ploy of spirit-painting mediums (Gibson 1967)—was a disarming but irrelevant act since the main canvas on which the marks were placed was not switched.