Talk:Alien autopsy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alien autopsy article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Sky One Documentary 2 Come on! It's a fake! Where's the debate?! 3 Neither an "alien" nor an "autopsy" 4 Scope 5 Hoax? 6 Sources

[edit] Sky One 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))

[edit] Come on! It's a fake! Where's the debate?!

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)

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.

[[5]]

[edit] Neither an "alien" nor an "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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))