Talk:Alien Autopsy (1995 film)

Documentary

Sky One have a documentary on this on the 4th of April that looks to finally put this one to bed [1] . Also a mention of the Ant and Dec film [2] might be worthwhile (Emperor 13:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

first of all, can you elaborate on that,second of all why isnt this article called alien atopsy and instead a mans name who is mentioned in this article only by what he did?192.30.202.28 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which bit you want me to elaborate on but you can now read my review of the documentary [3] which, I hope, addresses whatever queries you had. Basically what Santilli now claims is close to the plot of the film - he faked the alien autopsy footage but only because he bought the real footage of an alien autopsy which was (unfortunately/fortuitously) degraded. There is a lot more discussion out there - I have brought some of the best stuff I could find together [4] - if you have any specific questions then I'll see what I can do about answering them (Emperor 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

"facts"?

The debate on whether the autopsied body is a very realistic mannequin, a girl with a genetic disorder (such as progeria or Turner's syndrome), or a real alien is still going on. It is also questionable whether the film material and the equipments and objects in the autopsy room actually date to the time in question. Pathologists have also questioned the techniques being used in the supposed autopsy. - it's an admitted fake hence the Ant & Dec film. Jooler 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed "still going on" to "continued for years". Do more corrections need to be made? Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"facts"? - Possible Response

[[5]]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.237.138 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on!

People, come on! This is a hoax. It never happened. Look, I want to believe, but this film is a hoax. Aliens could be real, but that film is known as a hoax. The creator said so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.13.185 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alien? Autopsy?

A point of order, folks....

I acknowlede that the name "alien autopsy" is commonly attached to this ridiculous affair, and that "Alien autopsy" might be the correct name for the article. That said, and without wishing to sound pedantic, I think that the terms alien and autopsy are best avoided in the body of the article as far as possible, in the interest of strictly encyclopedic prose. Remember please, that autopsy is defined as the post-mortem examination of a human being, and that some of us human beings are, in fact, aliens, though not actually extraterrestrial. Even if the footage really had turned out to depict the post-mortem examination of an extraterrestrial, it still wouldn't show an alien autopsy. I've used examination (rather than autopsy), extraterrestrial being and dummy. I always figured that the thing was just a bloody meat puppet.... --TheMadBaron 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "autopsy" is not restricted to postmortem examinations of human beings; it is also applied to animal PMs. In addition, if you look at the etymology of the word, you will see it comes from the Greek autos + optos ("self-seen"), having nothing to do with whether the subject is human or not. Also note that "alien necropsy" is no more accurate than "alien autopsy," as "necropsy" is simply a synonym of "autopsy" (although "necropsy" is more often applied to animal PMs). As for "alien," the word does not only have a legal definition; it is also commonly understood (and formally defined) as meaning "extraterrestrial." (For a list of definitions of these terms, I suggest using the form "define: subject" on Google.) Therefore, as it is misinformation, I am removing the note on the use of "alien autopsy" in the introduction to the article. Flamingpies (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope

The intro says this article is about the phenominon of alien autopsy in general...if that's true, there seriously needs to be some coverage of some different topics. --InShaneee 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoax?

Someone calling themselves Santilli editted this entry [6] and this was reverted but that version does come closer to a NPOV. As far as (the real) Santilli has said it isn't a hoax it is a reconstruction. Personally I think he is trying to have his cake and eat it (as well as spin this whole saga out for a bit longer) but if we are going to reflect both sides of the arguement the best we can say is that a lot of people consider this a hoax but Santilli claims there are tiny parts of the original footage mixed in with a "reconstruction" of it that he created. Unless someone can poke holes in his version of the story that is the best we can say. (Emperor 21:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Sources

This whole thing is lacking in sources and those that are here are of the more hardocre Skeptical variety and there does need to be some balance. There is a Fortean Times article online which gives more details [7] whihc has some interesting reactions from Mantle and the impact on BUFORA and British Ufology (my understanding was BUFORA didn't necessarily believe it but gave it a platform). I think the FT article was accompanied by a piece from Jenny Randles (who ran it at the time) about the feelings in the community at the time and I'll try and dig it out. Anyone got any more references? (Emperor 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

I think that a good starting place would be to find a WP:RS source that can verify what Santilli said about having 'restored' the film. I can personally vouche that its mostly accurate (Which is why I tagged it, rather than deleted it), but I don't have a source to WP:V it. perfectblue 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The source pretty much is the Eaommon Investigates Sky One show (and reports on it and possibly follow up interviews - although I don't know of many that expand on his carefully worded statements). If that is reliable enough I can see if I can get some quotes. (Emperor 20:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Not every article needs "some balance" -- some things are too bogus to bother. Does an article about John Dillinger need to be balanced with sources that think he was framed for every crime? Does an article on Santa Claus need some balance from sources that say he exists? Extraterrestrials can visit the earth regardless of the authenticy of any of those alien autopsy films. Doczilla 08:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously the film is a hoax which also removes any basis for claims about alien autopsies. However, just as obviously you have not understood what NPOV means. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian extraterrestrial

I saw a television documentary about an extraterrestrial spacecraft crash in Russia and subsequent amateur post-mortem of extraterrestrials. I don't remember the title though. This event should be covered in this article too.
Sleigh 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You saw a film about Alyoshenka, which isn't a fake, yet not an alien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efenstor (talk • contribs) 09:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography Project banner

The Biography WikiProject banner ended up on this talk page. I have removed it, as it shouldn't be here: the article this page is attatched to isn't a biography and doesn't discuss a person.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

In the movie "Ghost World," a man approaches Enid and Rebecca to give them a flyer advertising a for a gig in which his band, "Alien Autopsy" will be playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.31.192 (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition

The following addition to the article Alien Autopsy is suggested to make the article more broad in scope, and to add information for those of us interested in the Roswell Incident:

Several researchers have reported that an autopsy was conducted in the Roswell Army Air Base Hospital (now the site of the New Mexico Rehabilitation Center) on an alien recovered from the 1947 Roswell UFO Crash, although as usual, many conflicting claims and counter-claims surround the reports. In one popular story, Nurse Self drew sketches of the alien she had helped autopsy for Glenn Dennis when they met for coffee the next day in the Officer’s Club (now the site of the Eastern New Mexico University-Roswell Student Union Building). A mock-up of the autopsy scene, used in the 1994 Showtime movie, "Roswell," is a popular display in the UFO Museum in Roswell, NM. (Reference: Lynn Michelsohn. "Roswell, Your Travel Guide to the UFO Capital of the World!" Cleanan Press, 2008. ISBN# 978-0-9771614-7-8)

Comments? Professor73Q (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. For starters it blandly states "...on an alien recovered..." as though it were a fact. Surely its an "alleged" alien and "Several researchers" sound like weasel words to me. Jschnur (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is "autopsy" a verb? Whats wrong with "perform an autopsy" Jschnur (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I added the dispute tag because the lead is making remarkable statements as though they were fact, without a shred of evidence/sourcing. Who says an alien autopsy "is" a medical examination and dissection "of the dead body" of an "extraterrestrial"? We don't even say this is claimed by someone, or even who the claimants are. At present Wikipedia itself is baldly stating that "An alien autopsy is a medical examination and dissection of the dead body of an extraterrestrial being ". Some serious sourcing is needed or it needs to be deleted. Moriori (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Original Air Date

I remember watching this as a child during the 90s. When and where was the first broadcast of this video? I think I saw it on Channel 4 - it was quite heavily advertised - did the UK show it before Fox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.151.215 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No. It was shown the day before in Italy, then it was braodcasted around the world on the same day. Fox then replayed the show 3 more times, adding more material to it's running time. They added the "Tent Footage" by the end of it run. Later, the Tent Footage was a proven to be a hoax but the Autopsy and the Debris footage was not a proven hoax until much later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzoab (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status

is this film in the public domain or not? some sources say its public domain, but on other websites it states that its copyrighted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.227.73 (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Alien autopsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217194004/http://www.dirtypoetfilms.com/JcJarchives/Alien_Autopsy.html to http://www.dirtypoetfilms.com/JcJarchives/Alien_Autopsy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Spiro Melaris

What is the connection with Spiro Melaris who says he shot the film and reveals that it is a hoax and how he did it in a new West End show?

I know this is Metro magazine which is not always the most reliable of sources, but there is also a West End show of this name.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/25/man-behind-infamous-alien-autopsy-video-finally-reveals-the-whole-truth-behind-it-6954667/

West end show https://www.seetickets.com/tour/alien-autopsy-the-greatest-hoax-of-all-time Robert Walker (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure where else to put this, but could someone please block this IP?

94.241.194.216, it seems like some sort of Russian viral marketing. Possibly a bot, the IP is Russian as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannkemper (talk • contribs) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

United States Copyright Office Details

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per the United States Copyright Office Alien autopsy copyright is given to Spiro Melaris and not Ray Santilli

United States Government Source https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SAB1=Spyros+Melaris&BOOL1=all+of+these&FLD1=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29+%28GKEY%29&GRP1=OR+with+next+set&SAB2=&BOOL2=as+a+phrase&FLD2=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29+%28GKEY%29&PID=43h-IDrGaLuVFItDlDvp0VDhi&SEQ=20191028030319&CNT=25&HIST=1

As this page violate the copyright, it should be deleted.Thank You Truthis1990 (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• No, the page does not violate the copyright. If it did, no movie review would ever be permitted. As to the actual claim of ownership itself, we attribute that to reliable independent sources. If the sources are wrong, we will be wrong, and that is by design: Wikipedia is not here to fix real-world problems, about attribution or anything else. Guy (help!) 11:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I don't really understand the LOC record. But from what I can tell, Spyros Melaris doesn't actually claim copyright over the film. It sounds like they acknowledge it was a work for hire for Ray Santilli and/or Gary Shoefield and were paid accordingly. While not an RS see e.g. [8] and [9]. (It sounds like there could be some dispute over royalties but even if there is, that doesn't seem to have been pursued so it's irrelevant for us.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alien autopsy

A tag has been placed on Alien autopsy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SAB1=Spyros+Melaris&BOOL1=all+of+these&FLD1=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29+%28GKEY%29&GRP1=OR+with+next+set&SAB2=&BOOL2=as+a+phrase&FLD2=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29+%28GKEY%29&PID=43h-IDrGaLuVFItDlDvp0VDhi&SEQ=20191028030319&CNT=25&HIST=1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Truthis1990 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Removed. The content to which you refer appears to be drawn from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Guy (help!) 11:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guy! Ray Santilli is not the copyright holder of Alien autopsy ... So the information in this article is wrong https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1%2C1&SAB1=Spyros%20Melaris&BOOL1=all%20of%20these&FLD1=Keyword%20Anywhere%20(GKEY)%20(GKEY)&GRP1=OR%20with%20next%20set&SAB2=&BOOL2=as%20a%20phrase&FLD2=Keyword%20Anywhere%20(GKEY)%20(GKEY)&CNT=25&PID=pr_gLPSzWh_qY1R2D1KfG_7FUNK&SEQ=20191028014403&SID=1&fbclid=IwAR25YqjEapULhdzAElgRCVNXbWo1FbFq2cDEz3cwlq4h5QXl_LUc9Q_mAd8 Truthis1990 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That is what we call a novel synthesis from a primary source. Feel free to come back when you have persuaded the sources we cite, to change their attribution. Regardless, that has no bearing on the content of the article, as the text of the article is not copyright. Guy (help!) 12:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ray Santilli does not have the copyright to the film but the article text shows as he own it...so this page is developed with wrong information Truthis1990 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if true, that is completely irrelevant to the copyright status of this article. I could write that I created the Harry Potter books, that would not be a copyright violation. Guy (help!) 12:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In Such case... Can we allow wrong information... I am nerd editor only-- So can we allow anyone who tell that they wrote Harry Potter.... is it editors work to provide right information... Truthis1990 (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 28 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

---

• Alien autopsy → Alien Autopsy (1995 film)
• Alien Autopsy (film) → Alien Autopsy (2006 film)

– There is no obvious primary topic by pageviews or longterm significance between the two films. One was inspired by the other, but inspiration alone does not force something to be primary. It also goes without saying that this is not about the concept of an alien autopsy, that may be better off redirecting to Roswell incident or something similar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment. No straightforward answer to this, but just to clarify some factors that need to be taken into consideration. There are actually 4 films in question.

1. The alleged (but probably mythical) amateur footage from 1947 showing the autopsy. No title.
2. The alleged reconstruction of above footage released (in the sense of made public) by Santilli in 1995: the main topic of this article. Whether a complete fake or not, this is still a piece of amateur footage, without a formal title – hence the lower-case "autopsy" in the title of this article.
3. The 1995 TV broadcast of the footage, formally titled Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction: dealt with in this article, but not its main topic.
4. The 2006 feature film, currently dealt with at Alien Autopsy (film).

While I agree there's a case for retitling this article, I don't think Alien Autopsy (1995 film) works, because it is giving #2 (the main topic of the article) a formal title that it never possessed. I'd prefer something like Alien autopsy hoax film, or Alien autopsy reconstruction (neither very elegant; other suggestions welcome). I don't see any need at present to retitle the other article, which is distinguished by the capitalised "Autopsy" (and, of course, there are hatnotes to guide any reader who ends up on the wrong page, which should certainly remain). GrindtXX (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Both films have the same title and therefore should be differentiated via years of production / distribution. I also agree with some of the points raised by GrindtXX and would support further moves depending upon consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

But the TV broadcast of that title is only a subtopic within this article. GrindtXX (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Alleviates any ambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it introduces ambiguity, because there were two different 1995 films: the footage released by Santilli, which was untitled, and the subsequent TV broadcast titled Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction. GrindtXX (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Both of which are covered in this article, so where's the ambiguity? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The proposed title, Alien Autopsy (1995 film), uses "film" (singular) suggesting that it is about only one film. That would be fine, if we accept that the primary topic is the Santilli footage; but it also capitalises "Autopsy", thereby misleadingly assigning the formal title of the secondary film (the TV broadcast, a subsidiary topic) to the Santilli footage (the primary topic, which was in fact untitled). A better solution might be something like Alien autopsy (1995 footage). GrindtXX (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support and create a DAB between the 3 meanings. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Crouch, Swale. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No mention of Spyros Melaris

This article goes into detail about Ray Santilli, but there is no mention of Spyros Melaris or John Humphreys who actually made the film. Unlike Santilli, Spyros is trying to prove that his own movie is a hoax. He gave two long interviews about it a few years back.

https://astonishinglegends.com/al-podcasts/tag/Spyros+Melaris 61.12.248.187 (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)