There’s nothing more maddening than having someone invite you to make up your own mind about a controversy, only to have them refuse to give you the tools to do it.

That’s precisely what the Fox television network did August 28 and September 4, 1995, when it presented a one-hour special “Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?” that was billed as the network premiere of a 17-minute film purporting to be the autopsy of a space creature found near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. [See also the SI Special Report on Roswell by Philip J. Klass in this issue, and Joe Nickell’s column.]

Instead of simply showing the 17 minutes, viewers got to see maybe three, four, or five minutes of footage chopped up into MTV-sized snippets that were repeated throughout the hour.

Instead of a tough skeptical analysis of a film that has been kept tightly under wraps by its owner, executive producer Robert Kiviat — whose resume includes being a coordinating producer on Fox’s pseudoscience newsmagazine program “Encounters” — “Alien Autopsy” tended to showcase interviews from people who seemed convinced that the footage was either real, or a complicated hoax that would have been extremely difficult to pull off.

“Alien Autopsy” was far from one-sided. Kiviat repeatedly had the host, “Star Trek” actor Jonathan Frakes, note that the movie could be a hoax, and Kiviat addressed some key criticisms. But other important criticisms were muted, ignored, taken out of context, or simply brushed aside.

It’s understandable that some people would be impressed by the film. The snippets the producers chose to air looked convincing in many ways. Scalpels seemed to cut flesh. A skin flap from the skull seemed to be pulled over the face. Dark innards were removed from the brain area and the body cavity, and placed into pans. The tools and equipment seemed to be from the right era.

Yet when it comes to exposing a clever fraud, the devil is in the details.

By failing to show the entire film, one was left to wonder whether Fox was leaving out the portions that might have flagged the movie as bogus.

“Alien Autopsy” comes at a difficult time for UFO enthusiasts. Today’s cutting-edge UFO tales have become so extraordinary, they're often met with derision, even by people in the increasingly sensationalist media.

That’s why the focus seems to have shifted to Roswell, where the details are still intriguing enough to fire the imagination, and the facts and recollections have been polished bright by the passage of time. With its simple tale of a crashed saucer, a few space aliens, and a government cover-up, the Roswell story seems far more plausible (relatively speaking) than today’s tales of aliens passing through walls, millions of Americans being abducted by sex-obsessed space creatures, and extra- terrestrials who create alien-human babies.

UFO believers thought they had the Roswell affair pretty well figured out. “Alien Autopsy” has shaken things up because the images in the film don’t always conform to the picture the believers have painstakingly constructed over the years. The creature on the autopsy table is tall, its eyes are too small, it has too many fingers and toes, and it looks too humanlike, complete with humanlike ears and toenails.

Some enthusiasts had expressed the fear that “Alien Autopsy” would discredit some of the work that has gone into uncovering the truth at Roswell. Such fears may be justified. In the media, it’s the images, not facts, that shape public attitudes and debates these days. Long after people have forgotten the details of a Roswell book or article, they're going to remember the video of this six-fingered “alien” undergoing an “autopsy.”

The film snippets that were shown raised all kinds of questions, and provided few answers. Some examples:

• One small part of the film shows someone making a cut in the skin along the neck. Did the full-length film include the showing of any dissection of the cut area? Was this cutting of skin simply done for effect, possibly with a trick knife that makes a glistening mark on the body that appears to be the blood from an incision?
• One section of the film shows an intact body (except for a large leg wound). Another shows the thorax and abdomen cut open. Were there any steps in between, or did possible hoaxers making the film simply cut open a latex dummy, dump animal guts inside, and pretend to take them out?
• There were film clips of organs, such as the brain, being removed. But organs can’t be pulled from a body like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. They're held in position by sometimes-tough connective tissue that must first be cut away. The film snippets on “Alien Autopsy” showed no evidence of that type of dissection. That flaw — if it is a flaw — was most obvious when the doctor plucked the dark covering off the eye. Unless these were simply extraterrestrial contact lenses, a piece of the eye isn’t going to come away that easily without some connective tissue being sliced first.
• Where was everybody? How many people would turn down the chance to watch the historic autopsy of a creature from another world? Yet there were only two people in this room, in addition to the cameraman.
• Why did the person watching from behind the glass partition, and not in the room, need to be suited up?
• For such an extraordinary autopsy, why did there seem to be so little effort to document it? There was no attempt to weigh or label the specimens, and there were just a few shots of someone putting data on a single sheet of paper.
• Why was the supposedly experienced cameraman — who also claims to have been present when three alien creatures were found — trying to take close-ups that invariably made the film go out of focus? Good photographers know when they're getting too close to their subject and need to switch to a lens with a more appropriate focal length.

The fact is, an autopsy on a creature this extraordinary wouldn’t be done the way this one was. The being would have been turned over so the back could be examined (in fact, the “doctors” seemed reluctant to move the body much at all). The skin would have been carefully stripped away to examine the pattern of the musculature. The origin and insertion of individual muscles would have been documented. Samples would have been taken, weighed, recorded and photographed. Only then would the people behind the protective hoods have gone deeper into the gut, repeating the documentation process.

When critics have questioned the quick removal of the black sheath on the eyes, the argument has been made that this was the third or fourth alien autopsied, so the procedure was becoming easier. The argument doesn't wash. Unless this was one of scores of alien bodies, researchers would want to handle each case with excruciating care so they could compare and contrast the individuals.

Unfortunately, the people who were skeptical of the film — ironically, including people prominent in the UFO movement — were given little time and almost no opportunity to explain their skepticism, making them appear to be little more than debunkers. Kent Jeffrey, who argued months earlier that the film is a hoax, only got to predict that it will probably eventually be exposed as a fraud. The criticisms of one Hollywood filmmaker, who thought the movie was bogus, were quickly countered by a cameraman from the era who said it wasn’t surprising that this autopsy cameraman would allow his view to be blocked or parts of the movie to be out of focus.

Then there were things the show didn’t tell viewers.

“Alien Autopsy” quoted Laurence Cate of Kodak, who said the markings on the film indicate it was manufactured in 1927, 1947 or 1967. The program didn’t make it clear that Cate is not an expert in authentication, according to the Sunday Times of London.

Paolo Cherchi Usai, senior curator at George Eastman House, a photography museum, based his observation that the film would be difficult to fabricate on seeing the 17 minutes of film and about five frames of leader film that carried no date coding and was supposedly clipped from the beginning of one of the rolls of film. Conclusive tests on the film had yet to be done.

The Hollywood special effects team led by Stan Winston gave the most impressive testimonial. But I got the impression they were being asked to gauge the difficulty of staging a bogus alien autopsy back in 1947. Winston and his associates said the special effects were good, even by today’s standards, but from the clips shown on “Alien Autopsy,” this television program didn’t seem to come close to rivaling the quality of films you could rent in any video store.

The bottom line is that if the film is legitimate and this is the first solid evidence of life on other planets, it deserves real authentication, not the casual checking the program provided.

Independent experts need to pinpoint the date of the frames, then examine all the reels to be sure the entire film has the same date code. For all we know, most of the film is from contemporary stock. Checking the whole film would dramatically narrow the range of possibilities for a hoax.

The cameraman needs to be identified and questioned to confirm that he exists, that he was in the military, and that he really was the cameraman. There’s been talk that he wants to avoid being prosecuted by the government for keeping a copy of the film all these years. That’s claptrap. If the film is a hoax, why would the government bother him? If the film is real, dragging a more-than-80-year-old military veteran into court would be an admission by the government that the footage is real, and that would spark some tough questions about who or what was on that examining table. The government, not the photographer, would be on the hot seat.

But instead of insisting on authentication first, Fox seemed intent on milking the movie for every penny possible. The network repeated the program one week after its original showing and tried to drum up renewed interest for the rerun by promising more footage from the 17-minute film. Those who turned in saw about three additional minutes of footage, but Fox still didn’t show the whole 17-minute film. In all, the autopsy sequences were only on the screen for 13-1/2 minutes and, once again, that total included clips that were shown repeatedly.

It was not what you would expect from a major network that thought it was broadcasting a history-making film.

It was, however, what you would expect from a network trying very hard not to spoil an illusion.

A starting point for the investigation was Jody Himebaugh, whose 11-year-old son Mark disappeared November 25, 1991. Although Himebaugh conceded that the likelihood of his son being found alive was very small, more than 100 alleged psychics had contacted him with their visions. He said they typically saw a "dark car,” “the number 5,” or similar “clues” that were never any help. (After a case is finally resolved, the psychics typically interpret their vague pronouncements to fit the actual facts. This is called retrofitting. See my Psychic Sleuths, Prometheus Books, 1994.)

Prompted in part by the Himebaugh case, Denenberg first consulted with CSICOP investigators. Then he and other members of his Newscenter 10 unit went undercover to test the alleged powers of “so-called psychics,” some of whom, the investigative segment announced, “prey on the parents of missing children.”

As the focus of their test Denenberg’s team utilized a 15-year-old named Kate. Although film clips showed her playing softball in her front yard, various tarot card readers and “psychic advisors” — as well as certain 900-number clairvoyants — were told that the schoolgirl had been missing since January.

In response, some psychics saw her experiencing “physical harm"; one collected a fee of $50 for seeing her “confined against her will"; another charged $180 to report that the girl had run away and was "probably pregnant"; and, while one psychic envisioned her only two miles from home, another saw her far away in Florida. Not one among the several psychics ever divined the truth about the teenager — that she was not missing — or about the true purpose of Channel 10’s investigation.

When confronted with the evidence that their psychic powers were inoperative, the alleged clairvoyants chose not to appear on camera. However, a spokesman for “Miss Ruby, Psychic Reader and Advisor,” conceded she should have foreseen the sting operation, and she refunded the TV station’s money.

Denenberg’s investigative report also featured Frank Friel, who has 30 years of experience in law enforcement. He stated that he had never had a psychic provide a valuable clue, and he criticized the alleged seers for their phony offerings, which he described as “catastrophic to the well-being” of the families concerned, and, indeed, "out-and-out fraud.”

Himebaugh said psychics took an “emotional toll” on families. He said he had twice ended up in the hospital suffering from anxiety attacks brought on by psychics’ false hopes.

Whether or not Denenberg’s efforts are successful in retarding future psychic activities in the Philadelphia area, he and Channel 10 are to be commended for a fine piece of investigative reporting — one in which a paranormal claim again fails to withstand the light of scrutiny.

Interviewed by the San Jose (California) Metro (July 6, 1995), Singer, a medical anthropologist, mused on the cultural significance of bras in Western society: “They're really invested in wearing bras, women identify with their breasts so much. Can they stop wearing bras if it meant saving their lives?”

A spokesperson for the National Cancer Institute responds: “We look forward to the publication of the Bra and Breast Cancer Study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, where the study results can be properly evaluated.”

Another leading authority on cancer who recently made her findings known was actress Sharon Stone. She gave a talk to the National Press Club in Washington, titled “A Holistic Approach to the War on Cancer.” She explained how she had cured herself of lymphoma, a particularly virulent type of cancer, by “a lot of positive thinking and a lot of holistic healing,” and most especially by staying away from coffee. “When I stopped drinking coffee, ten days later, I had no tumors in any of my lymph glands,” the actress reported. However, Richard Carlson, the president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, who was listening to her talk with great incredulity, writes (The Washington Post, July 2, 1995) that Stone’s publicist later admitted that the actress never had cancer, which makes one wonder why in the world Stone was giving this talk in the first place, and why she was given this forum.

The Dean of UFO skeptics, Philip J. Klass, reports in his Skeptics UFO Newsletter that Joe Barron, MUFON’s (Mutual UFO Network) chief investigator for the UFO “hot zones” of Gulf Breeze, and Pensacola, Florida, allegedly has discovered a new UFO landing strip: the carpet inside his house. Barron reports discovering two mysterious 7-inch-diameter indentations in his carpet (Is this the first report of carpet circles?) after having heard a very loud noise. Three more identical rings were found in another room. Barron concluded that “as a result of the loud noise, and finding the rings, contact was established with me by some entity which, at this moment, is a mystery to me.”

Klass also reports that UFO lecturer Robert Dean told an enthusiastic audience at last year’s UFO conference in Pensacola, Florida, that "there are aliens mining the moon. They have bases on the moon.” Not one, but four different alien species are operating on our moon, he says, and one species looks exactly like earthlings. “All of our astronauts know it, and many of them are having nervous breakdowns,” according to Dean. In fact, Dean says, the reason that NASA ended its program of manned lunar flight is that “we were told to get off the moon and stay off.”

Meanwhile, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in El Cahon, California, continues its vigorous research into the mysteries of what it calls “creation science.” The July 1995 issue of its publication Acts and Facts sets forth the findings of Jack Cuozzo, “an orthodontist who has become an expert in the dental, facial, and cranial characteristics of Neanderthal man.” Traveling all around the world to study Neanderthal skulls, Cuozzo claims to have found much evidence that evolutionist scholars and museum curators have manipulated Neanderthal remains to make them appear far more apelike than they actually are. For example, Cuozzo charges that evolutionists allegedly physically manipulate and depict these skulls with their jaws dislocated and the teeth pushed forward to make them look apelike, when, according to Cuozzo, in reality the Neanderthal man’s skull differs little from yours or mine. Explains the publication: "ICR has long held that these people [Neanderthals] were a language group who migrated away from the Tower of Babel. They found themselves in harsh Ice Age circumstances and some were forced to live in caves. Poor nutrition and disease, as well as inbreeding, resulted in characteristics we now call Neanderthaloid.” However, these hardships do not seem to have taken too heavy a toll on the group. Says ICR: "Many of these features, heavy brow ridge, teeth crowding forward, deterioration of the chin, excessive wear on the teeth, are features of very old individuals. And why not? The Bible says that in the days soon after Noah’s Flood, people still lived several hundred years. Cuozzo postulates that many of the classic Neanderthal skeletons were the remains of very old men and women.” It is not known whether the practice of poor nutrition, inbreeding, and living in caves might allow modern humans to live as long.

In that same issue of Acts and Facts, William J. Spear, Jr. addresses the problem “Could Adam Really Name All Those Animals?” Some readers may not have realized that this presents a problem, but the ever-vigilant scholars of creation science are constantly testing and refining their hypotheses. According to Genesis 2:19-21, God paraded all of the earth’s animals and birds before Adam, who gave names to each kind. Adam, however, at this time was only a few hours old (the "days” of creation being interpreted literally by the ICR as 24-hour days), and hence he may have been barely able to walk and talk. He needed not to merely name all of the various species (at least those visible to the naked eye) in one single day, but he also had to set aside some time to be anesthetized for the extraction of his rib so that Eve could be created. In that day there were tens of thousands of species of animals to be named, with only 86,400 seconds to do it, and the number of now-extinct species living before the Flood must have been truly overwhelming. Adam would have been naming not only mammals and birds, but all of the dinosaurs as well, who were created at the same time as the other animals. Clearly, the task borders on the impossible, even for an unfallen man.

One theory of Adam’s success in naming animal species is that Adam was created, according to Spear, “preinformed or preprogrammed with knowledge essential not only to his own survival, but also to carrying out his Creator’s multiple purposes.” However, this hypothesis seems to take away from Adam’s free will (and while Spear does not mention it, given that Adam later sinned, it does not seem a good idea to implicate the Creator too strongly as the author of Adam’s thoughts). Another theory, said Spear, is that, since “humans today utilize only 10-20 percent of our brain’s capacity, Adam may have been able to utilize what he did know much more rapidly and with greater acuity than we can.” That is, Adam’s brain was operating at much closer to 100 percent. However, Spear’s preferred theory is that God may have used a sort of “virtual reality” (VR) to speed up the process, since this unfallen man had an untarnished and direct mental perception of the deity. So God may have used the divinity-to-humanity communication link that has since been nearly severed to present speeded-up images in Adam’s mind of animals parading before him, waiting to be named. This would seem logical, since a tremendous amount of precious time would otherwise be wasted waiting for snails, slugs, and tortoises to slowly go lumbering past. Spear concludes: "Because Adam named the animals before the Fall, his recollection was crystal clear, accurate, and voluminous. It may have even been like VR in the sense that Adam could see, smell, feel, and hear the creatures within his memory. At any rate, it may have felt as if it were immediate knowledge rather than knowledge mediated by God at Creation. Adam’s memory would be able to tell no difference.”

For example, in 1887 Richard Hodgson and S. John Davey held seances in Britain (in which phenomena were faked by trickery) for unsuspecting sitters and requested each sitter to write a description of the seance after it had ended. Hodgson and Davey reported that sitters omitted many important events and recalled others in incorrect order. Indeed, some of the accounts were so unreliable that Hodgson later remarked: The account of a trick by a person ignorant of the method used in its production will involve a misdescription of its fundamental conditions . . . so marked that no clue is afforded the student for the actual explanation (Hodgson and Davey 1887, p. 9).

In a partial replication of this work, Theodore Besterman (1932) in Britain had sitters attend a fake seance and then answer questions relating to various phenomena that had occurred. Besterman reported that sitters had a tendency to underestimate the number of persons present in the seance room, to fail to report major disturbances that took place (e.g., the movement of the experimenter from the seance room), to fail to recall the conditions under which given phenomena took place, and to experience the illusory movements of objects.

More recently, Singer and Benassi in the United States (1980) had a stage magician perform fake psychic phenomena before two groups of university students. Students in one group were told that they were about to see a magician; the other group, that they were about to witness a demonstration of genuine psychic ability. Afterward, all of the students were asked to note whether they believed the performer was a genuine psychic or a magician. Approximately two-thirds of both groups stated they believed the performer to be a genuine psychic. In a follow-up experiment the researchers added a third condition, wherein the experimenter stressed that the performer was definitely a magician. Fifty-eight percent of the people in this group still stated they believed the performer to be a genuine psychic!

These studies admirably demonstrate that eyewitness testimony of supposedly paranormal events can be unreliable. Additional studies have now started to examine some of the factors that might cause such inaccuracy.

Clearly, many supposedly paranormal events are difficult to observe simply because of their duration, frequency, and the conditions under which they occur. For example, ostensible poltergeist activity, seance phenomena, and UFO sightings often occur without warning, are over within a few moments, take place under poor lighting or weather conditions, or happen at a considerable distance from observers. In addition, some people have sight/hearing deficiencies, while others have observed these phenomena under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or when they are tired (especially if they have had to wait a relatively long time for the phenomena to occur).

It is also possible that observers’ beliefs and expectations play an important role in the production of inaccurate testimony. Different people clearly have different beliefs and expectations prior to observing a supposed psychic — skeptics might expect to see some kind of trickery; believers may expect a display of genuine psi. Some seventy years ago Eric Dingwall in Britain (1921) speculated that such expectations may distort eyewitness testimony:

The frame of mind in which a person goes to see magic and to a medium cannot be compared. In one case he goes either purely for amusement or possibly with the idea of discovering ‘how it was done,’ whilst in the other he usually goes with the thought that it is possible that he will come into direct contact with the other world (p. 211).

Recent experimental evidence suggests that Dingwall’s speculations are correct.

Wiseman and Morris (1995a) in Britain carried out two studies investigating the effect that belief in the paranormal has on the observation of conjuring tricks. Individuals taking part in the experiment were first asked several questions concerning their belief in the paranormal. On the basis of their answers they were classified as either believers (labeled “sheep”) or skeptics (labeled goats”). [Gertrude Schmeidler, City College, New York City, coined the terms sheep and goats.]

In both experiments individuals were first shown a film containing fake psychic demonstrations. In the first demonstration the “psychic” apparently bent a key by concentrating on it; in the second demonstration he supposedly bent a spoon simply by rubbing it.

After they watched the film, witnesses were asked to rate the “paranormal” content of the demonstrations and complete a set of recall questions. Wiseman and Morris wanted to discover if, as Hodgson and Dingwall had suggested, sheep really did tend to misremember those parts of the demonstrations that were central to solving the tricks. For this reason, half of the questions concerned the methods used to fake the phenomena. For example, the psychic faked the key-bending demonstration by secretly switching the straight key for a pre-bent duplicate by passing the straight key from one hand to the other. During the switch the straight key could not be seen. This was clearly central to the trick’s method; and one of the “important” questions asked was whether the straight key had always remained in sight. A second set of “unimportant” questions asked about parts of the demonstration that were not related to the tricks’ methods.

Overall, the results suggested that sheep rated the demonstrations as more “paranormal” than goats did, and that goats did indeed recall significantly more “important” information than sheep. There was no such difference for the recall of the “unimportant” information.

This is not the only study to investigate sheep/goat differences in observation and recall of “paranormal” phenomena. Jones and Russell in the United States (1980) asked individuals to observe a staged demonstration of extrasensory perception (ESP). In one condition the demonstration was successful (i.e., ESP appeared to occur) while in the other it was not. All individuals were then asked to recall the demonstration. Sheep who saw the unsuccessful demonstration distorted their memories of it and often stated that ESP had occurred. Goats tended to correctly recall the demonstration, even if it appeared to support the existence of ESP.

In addition, Matthew Smith in Britain (1993) investigated the effect that instructions (given prior to watching a film containing a demonstration of apparent psychic ability) had on the recall of the film. Individuals were split into two groups. One group was told that the film contained trickery; the other group was told that it contained genuine paranormal phenomena. The former group recalled significantly more information about the film than the latter group.

All of the above experiments were carried out in controlled laboratory settings. However, another recent study suggests that the same inaccuracies may exist in a more natural setting, namely, the seance room.

Many individuals have reported experiencing extraordinary phenomena during dark-room seances. Eyewitnesses claim that objects have mysteriously moved, strange sounds have been produced, or ghostly forms have appeared, and that these phenomena have occurred under conditions that render normal explanations practically impossible.

Believers argue that conditions commonly associated with a seance (such as darkness, anticipation, and fear) may act as a catalyst to produce these phenomena (Batcheldor 1966). Skeptics suggest that reports of seances are unreliable and that eyewitnesses are either fooling themselves or being fooled by fraudulent mediums.

The authors carried out an experiment in the United Kingdom to assess both the reliability of testimony relating to seance phenomena, and whether paranormal events could be produced in a modern seance. We carried out our experiment, titled “Manifestations,” three times. Twenty-five people attended on each occasion. They were first asked to complete a short questionnaire, noting their age, gender, and whether they believed that genuine paranormal phenomena might sometimes take place during seances.

A seance room had been prepared. All of the windows and doors in the room had been sealed and blacked out, and twenty-five chairs had been arranged in a large circle. Three objects — a book, a slate, and a bell — had been treated with luminous paint and placed onto three of the chairs. A small table, the edges of which were also luminous, was situated in the middle of the circle. Two luminous maracas rested on the table.

Following a brief talk on the aims of the project, the participants were led into the darkened seance room. Richard Wiseman played the part of the medium. With the help of a torch, he showed each person to a chair, and, where appropriate, asked them to pick up the book, slate, or bell.

Next, he drew participants’ attention to the table and maracas. Those participants who had picked up the other luminous objects were asked to make themselves known, and the “medium” collected the objects one by one and placed them on the table.

He then pointed out the presence of a small luminous ball, approximately 5 centimeters in diameter, suspended on a piece of rope from the ceiling. Finally, he took his place in the circle, extinguished the torch, and asked everybody to join hands.

The medium first asked the participants to concentrate on trying to move the luminous ball and then to try the same with the objects on the table. Finally, the participants were asked to concentrate on moving the table itself. The seance lasted approximately ten minutes.

Clearly, it was important that some phenomena occurred to assess the reliability of eyewitness testimony. The maracas were therefore “gimmicked” to ensure their movement during the seance. In the third seance the table was also similarly moved by trickery. Finally, we also used trickery to create a few strange noises at the end of each seance.

All of the ungimmicked objects were carefully placed on markers so that any movement would have been detectable. After leaving the seance room, the participants completed a short questionnaire that asked them about their experience of the seance.

No genuine paranormal phenomena took place during any of the seances. However, our questionnaire allowed us to assess the reliability of participants’ eyewitness testimony.

Would participants remember which objects had been handled before the start of the seance? As the maracas were gimmicked, we had to ensure that they were not examined or handled by anyone. Nevertheless, one in five participants stated that they had been. This was an important inaccuracy, as observers are likely to judge the movement of an object more impressive if they think that the item has been scrutinized beforehand.

This type of misconception was not confined to the maracas. In the first two seances, the slate, bell, book, and table remained stationary. Despite this, 27 percent of participants reported movement of at least one of these. In the third seance the table was gimmicked so that it shifted four inches toward the medium, but participants’ testimony was again unreliable, with one in four people reporting no movement at all.

An interesting pattern develops if the results are analyzed by separating the participants by belief. The ball, suspended from the ceiling, did not move at any time. Seventy-six percent of disbelievers were certain that it hadn’t moved. In contrast, the same certainty among believers was only 54 percent. In addition, 40 percent of believers thought that at least one other object had moved, compared to only 14 percent of disbelievers. The answers to the question “Do you believe you have witnessed any genuine paranormal phenomena?” perhaps provide the most conclusive result for the believer/ disbeliever divide. One in five believers stated that he or she had seen genuine phenomena. None of the disbelievers thought so. This would suggest that while we are all vulnerable to trickery, a belief or expectation of paranormal phenomena during seances may add to that vulnerability.

The results clearly show that it is difficult to obtain reliable testimony about the seance. Indeed, our study probably underestimated the extent of this unreliability as the seance lasted only ten minutes and participants were asked to remember what had happened immediately afterward.

Although a minority of participants believed that they had observed genuine paranormal phenomena, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that these individuals might be the most likely to tell others about their experience. Our results suggest that many of their reports would be fraught with inaccuracies and it might only take a few of the more distorted accounts to circulate before news that “genuine” paranormal phenomena had occurred became widespread.

In short, there is now considerable evidence to suggest that individuals’ beliefs and expectations can, on occasion, lead them to be unreliable witnesses of supposedly paranormal phenomena. It is vital that investigators of the paranormal take this factor into account when faced with individuals claiming to have seen extraordinary events. It should be remembered, however, that such factors may hinder accurate testimony regardless of whether that testimony is for or against the existence of paranormal phenomena; the observations and memory of individuals with a strong need to disbelieve in the paranormal may be as biased as extreme believers. In short, the central message is that investigators need to be able to carefully assess testimony, regardless of whether it reinforces or opposes their own beliefs concerning the paranormal.

Accurate assessment of the reliability of testimony requires a thorough understanding of the main factors that cause unreliable observation and remembering. Research is starting to reveal more about these factors and the situations under which they do, and do not, occur. Indeed, this represents part of a general movement to increase the quality of the methods used to investigate psychic phenomena (Wiseman and Morris 1995b). Given the important role that eyewitness testimony plays in parapsychology, understanding observation is clearly a priority for future research.

References

• Batcheldor, K. J. 1966. Report on a case of table levitation and associated phenomena. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 43: 339-356.
• Besterman, T. 1932. The psychology of testimony in relation to paraphysical phenomena: Report of an experiment. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 40: 363-387.
• Dingwall, E. 1921. Magic and mediumship. Psychic Science Quarterly, 1(3): 206-219.
• Hodgson, R., and S. J. Davy. 1887. The possibilities of mal-observation and lapse of memory from a practical point of view. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 4:381-495.
• Jones, W. H. and D. Russell. 1980. The selective processing of belief disconfirming information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10:309-312.
• Smith, M. D. 1993. The effect of belief in the paranormal and prior set upon the observation of a ‘psychic’ demonstration. European Journal of Parapsychology, 9:24-34.
• Singer, B. and V. A. Benassi. 1980. Fooling some of the people all of the time. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Winter: 17-24.
• Wiseman, R. J. and R. L. Morris. 1995a. Recalling pseudo-psychic demonstrations. British Journal of Psychology, 86:113-125.
• —. 1995b. Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

The Roswell crashed-saucer myth has been given renewed impetus by a controversial television program ”Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?” that purports to depict the autopsy of a flying saucer occupant. The “documentary,” promoted by a British marketing agency that formerly handled Walt Disney products, was aired August 28, and September 4, 1995, on the Fox television network. Skeptics, as well as many UFOlogists, quickly branded the film used in the program a hoax.

“The Roswell Incident,” as it is known, is described in several controversial books, including one of that title by Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore. Reportedly, in early July 1947, a flying saucer crashed on the ranch property of William Brazel near Roswell, New Mexico, and was subsequently retrieved by the United States government (Berlitz and Moore 1980). Over the years, numerous rumors, urban legends, and outright hoaxes have claimed that saucer wreckage and the remains of its humanoid occupants were stored at a secret facility — e.g., a (nonexistent) “Hangar 18” at Wright Patterson Air Force Base — and that the small corpses were autopsied at that or another site (Berlitz and Moore 1980; Stringfield 1977). [See the SI Special Report on Roswell by Philip J. Kiass in this issue.]

UFO hoaxes, both directly and indirectly related to Roswell, have since proliferated. For example, a 1949 science fiction movie, The Flying Saucer, produced by Mikel Conrad, purported to contain scenes of a captured spacecraft; an actor hired by Conrad actually posed as an FBI agent and swore the claim was true. In 1950, writer Frank Scully reported in his book Behind the Flying Saucers that the United States government had in its possession no fewer than three Venusian spaceships, together with the bodies of their humanoid occupants. Scully, who was also a Variety magazine columnist, was fed the story by two confidence men who had hoped to sell a petroleum-locating device allegedly based on alien technology. Other crash-retrieval stories followed, as did various photographs of space aliens living and dead: one gruesome photo portrayed the pilot of a small plane, his aviator’s glasses still visible in the picture (Clark 1993).

Among recent Roswell hoaxes was the MJ-12 fiasco, in which supposed top secret government documents including an alleged briefing paper for President Eisenhower and an executive order from President Truman corroborated the Roswell crash. Unfortunately, document experts readily exposed the papers as inept forgeries (Nickell and Fischer 1990).

Sooner or later, a Roswell “alien autopsy” film was bound to turn up. That predictability, together with a lack of established historical record for the bizarre film, is indicative of a hoax. So is the anonymity of the cameraman. But the strongest argument against authenticity stems from what really crashed at Roswell in 1947. According to recently released Air Force files, the wreckage actually came from a balloon-borne array of radar reflectors and monitoring equipment launched as part of the secret Project Mogul and intended to monitor acoustic emissions from anticipated Soviet nuclear tests. In fact, materials from the device match contemporary descriptions of the debris (foiled paper, sticks, and tape) given by rancher Brazel’s children and others (Berlitz and Moore 1980; Thomas 1995).

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, non-military codemark ("Restricted access, AO I 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).

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 anti-contamination 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): “1 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 [TD. Co note: it was our pal Rick Lazzarini] who doubted the film’s 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 bad 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 stating:

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.

References

• Alien or fake? 1995. Sheffield Star (England), August 18.
• “American Journal,” 1995. September 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, pp. 267-278. Detroit: Gale Research.
• Jeffrey, Kent. 1995. Bulletin 2: The purported 1947 Roswell film, Internet, May 26.
• Kurtz, Paul. 1995. Quoted in CSICOP press release, “Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?” film a hoax concludes scientific organization. April 25.
• Nickell, Joe, and John E Fischer. 1990. The crashed-saucer forgeries, International UFO Reporter, March/April 1990, pp.4-12.
• Stokes, Trey. 1995. Personal communication, August 29-31.
• Stringfield, Leonard, H. 1977. Situation Red: The UFO Siege. Garden City, N.Y.: Douhleday, pp. 84, 177-179.
• Thomas, Dave. 1995. The Roswell incident and Project Mogul, SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 19(4) (July-August): pp. 15-18.
• Uthman, Ld. 1995. “Fox’s ‘Alien Autopsy': A Pathologist’s View,” Usenet, sci.med.pathology, September 15.
• Wallace, Cliff 1995. Letter to Union Pictures, August 3, quoted in Wallace’s letter to Graham Birdsall, UFO Magazine, August 16, quoted on ParaNet, August 22.
• Wecht, Cyril. 1995. Quoted on “Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?” Fox Network, August 28 and September 4.