THE SANTILLI CIRCUS
by Joachim Koch
English version edited by Kent Jeffrey
1. Introduction
The aim of this article is to provide some medical background to demonstrate that there exists the possibility that an autopsy was not performed on an "alien being" in the film shown by Ray Santilli in London on May 5th. As a general surgeon in Germany, I feel qualified to write about this subject.
I practice in a large (700 bed) hospital in Berlin-Spandau, Germany. During the past 18 years I have seen many seriously injured individuals from all sorts of accidents. I have also attended numerous autopsies. Even today, seeing a body dissected is not pleasant for me. Although an autopsy is done in a clinical atmosphere for medical or scientific purposes, it nonetheless affects me deeply. When I leave the autopsy room to return to my normal duties, I take a few moments to forget the dissected corpse, and to remember the human being it once was.
If the being shown in the Santilli film was not a dummy -- if it was once a living being from Soccoro, Dallas, Cambridge, Berlin, or wherever -- it deserves the respect civilized people pay to all our deceased.
If it turns out that the entity in the film really is an alien, then by our greedy plundering of the corpse and showing this publicly, we will have shown how little value we place on life. By our actions, we may have failed the test of becoming equal members of the cosmic community.
2. Some considerations about bodies and autopsies
It is important to remember what Glenn Dennis, the mortician at Ballard's [Funeral Home in Roswell], said he was told by the nurse who witnessed the autopsies. According to Dennis, the preliminary autopsy was performed in the Air Force hospital at Roswell, and the bodies seen by the nurse had four fingers, unlike the body in the Santilli film, which had six.
If a preliminary autopsy in Roswell had been performed and the final dissection (in the Santilli film) was done in another place, perhaps Fort Worth or Wright Field, then sutures placed during the first autopsy should have been visible during the second autopsy shown in the film, but they were not. Not surprisingly, pathologists stitch up bodies more crudely than do surgeons, yet no one viewing the film reported any sutures, and in fact, the "doctors" in the film are seen making the initial cuts. The body in the film, then, could not have been one of the bodies that the nurse in Roswell saw being autopsied.
Most, if not all, who viewed the film were puzzled by the odd outfits of the "doctors." Kent Jeffrey, who was present at the showing, described them in his June MUFON Journal article as "two individuals in white anti-contamination suits, complete with hoods and narrow, rectangular glass faceplates..."
What were these suits for? They could not have been for protection from radiation because in a previous film shown by Santilli, "doctors" were seen examining a body without protective suits. Moreover, in the recovery of an alien craft and its crew, testing for radiation would certainly have been one of the first steps, but Jesse Marcel, Sr., has testified that no radiation was detected at the crash site.
The suits could not have been for protection from the odor of a decaying body. A suit for that purpose would have required breathing apparatus. Nor could the suits have been protection against unknown bacteria or viruses. In that case again, some sort of breathing apparatus would have been required to guard against airborne organisms.
So, it is likely that the strange outfit worn by the doctors had a different purpose -- to conceal their identities.
It is hard to understand why the autopsy was not performed under better lighting conditions, why only two "doctors"were in attendance, and why only one camera was operating amateurishly.
An autopsy of an alien would have been an extraordinary event. It may have been performed in a large room or auditorium so that many pathologists could have been present. It would have been performed very carefully and methodically, perhaps over several weeks' time. Careful motion picture filming and many slides and/or still photos would have resulted. Conditions would have been ideal to facilitate the best photographic records possible.
Nothing done by the film's "doctors" seems to indicate that they were aware of handling something of extraordinary value to mankind. The whole scene looked unpleasant and somehow illegal.
3. Physical Features
Only one or two of the attendees of the May 5th showing were medical professionals. Those present did, however, see a few features supposedly common to those of a "real alien," such as dark almond-shaped eyes, a larger than normal head, a small mouth, a small nose, and smaller than normal ears in an abnormal location. Also seen in the film were features that are not commonly reported characteristics of aliens -- six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.
I am not one who believes that alien lifeforms from other planets/worlds/dimensions must be different from human forms. In my opionion, they could look very similar to those on earth. We do not have to assume, however, that a six-toed being is an alien from outer space. Members of our own human species here on earth occasionally have six toes.
In medical terms, having more than five digits on the hands or feet is a genetic variation called "polydactylism." Polydactylism is seen in several different medical syndromes. A syndrome is a group of symptoms that collectively characterize a disease or abnormal condition; nearly all are named by the men or women who first describe them.
There are approximately 34 syndromes in which polydactylism of the fingers is present, and approximately 36 syndromes in which polydactylism of the toes is found.
In approximately 12 syndromes hexadactylism (six digits) of the fingers is present, and 13 with hexadactylism of the toes.
Note the description of one syndrome in particular. Extreme growth of the head; widespread eyes and deep eye sockets; a broad-based nose; increased growth of the base of the skull; a crescent-shaped skin fold at the inner upper eyelid; mongoloid axis of the eyelids; no hair between the eyebrows; lowering of the outer ear, which is small; small lips; lower jaw underdeveloped; low birth weight; short length at birth (dwarf like); unproportioned growth (dyschondroplasia); multiple variations of the ribs, breastbone, hip, knee; malformations of inner organs possible; poly- and/or hexadactylism.
This description is not that of an alien, but of a human being who suffers from "C-syndrome," or in the American medical literature, from "Opitz trigonocephaly syndrome." Only a few cases of C-syndrome have ever been described formally, and these few died very young. Still, the description indicates the variation possible in humans.
Another variation seen in humans is "Ellis-van Creveld syndrome," also known as "six-fingered dwarfism." This is characterized by the underdevelopment of various bones, particularly the long bones of the body. Bilateral hexadactyly is also prevalent. Another symptom is hypoplasia (arrested development), dysplasia (abnormal development), or absence of the teeth, fingernails, or toenails. Some of these individuals show sexual infantilism, with hypoplasia of the sexual organs. One third of these patients die during the first year of life.
For a syndrome to be diagnosed, key symptoms must exist, but not all symptoms have to be present. So, a human being could have some symptoms of a particular syndrome, but not all, and that human could live to early adulthood.
4. A disgraceful game
If the film really showed alien corpses, it should have been reviewed by independent UFO organizations using scientific methods. Instead of providing the film for review, Mr. Santilli began a game of cat-and-mouse. Some hints here, some interviews there. Some pictures to elder pop stars here, some pictures to crop circle researchers there. Then, media involvement and the showing at the London Museum on May 5th [followed by a more extensive and fully public showing of the film at BUFORA's conference in Sheffield, England on August 20; and the anticipated showing of a portion of the autopsy footage on international television on August 28, including a prime time special on the FOX network in the U.S. - ed.]
I remember when I was a medical student that by paying the dissection assistants, it would have been possible to be alone with the cadavers. With a lookout in place, students could have filmed a body. It is not unthinkable that a financially strapped student might decide to make a film to fool the UFO community.
The so-called "doctors" in the film could have been anyone-- doctors, actors, army personnel, or students. The anonymity of the doctors is ensured by their outfits and masks. Who could distinguish between an actor wearing a mask and a once-living politician, given the poor lighting, poor resolution, and distance shots of the film?
Recently, those involved with the Santilli film have attempted to explain themselves and establish the legitimacy of the film in interviews and on the Internet. However, in my opinion, they have lost their chance to be taken seriously by not playing it straight from the start.
Serious researchers should not lend credibility to Santilli's case. Instead, they should insist on a scientific analysis of the film by independent researchers. It's time to stop Santilli, with his unscientific handling of this matter because he is damaging the credibility of the UFO community. Our research into the possibility of extraterrestrial life should not be tainted by the Santillis of this world who follow only their own interests.
Joachim Koch Berlin, August 12, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg
Original file name: .CNI - Film.J Koch 8.21+
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.