UFO World
Alien Autopsy
"Bob Shell, in His Own Words"
by
John Powell
with
Rebecca Schatte
Email the Authors
John Powell
or Rebecca Schatte
[All indented and dated quotes are Bob Shell.]
-----------------------------
11/14/95 - "Hi All, Can someone tell me who John Powell is? He
and Rebecca Schatte have been flaming me on the
Internet. I know who Rebecca is, but never heard of
Powell, and none of my friends have either. Since
his attitude is as arrogant as mine, I assume he is
someone you are just supposed to know about."
11/17/95 - "He [John Powell] has not been a "nice guy" to me.
He has called me a liar, a fraud, a perpetrator of
hoaxes, and so on. Stuff that never would be allowed
on this forum [CompuServe], for sure!"
Who is Bob Shell? In Bob's own words this is Bob Shell:
7/5/95 - "Actually, I started out as a zoologist, and worked
in that capacity at the Smithsonian institution."
9/20/95 - "This was while I was in DC working as a zoologist on
a CIA project on biological warfare vectors..."
9/95 - "As a zoologist I have the gut feeling that what I
see on this film is a real body of a non-human but
humanoid creature."
11/7/95 - "Here I am on firm ground as a zoologist."
6/28/95 - "...as a biologist..."
9/2/95 - "I mean, speaking as a biologist looking at the
dissection this looks like a real something being
dissected and it sure ain't a human."
9/2/95 - "My training originally is in zoology. I have
dissected corpses. I have been present at
autopsies."
11/7/95 - "Nope, I'm no medical expert."
7/5/95 - "...not been actively involved in UFO research."
9/3/95 - "I am not a UFO investigator or expert."
6/28/95 - "I have exchanged telephone calls and e-mail with Ray
Santilli about the dating of this film. I am a court
qualified expert in photo analysis, and have the
connections at Kodak and various museums to easily
verify the dating of this film stock."
6/30/95 - "I've been in this business for more than thirty
years now, and have seen a lot of UFO photos in those
years. I have yet to see one which is convincing.
Most are obvious, and not very sophisticated, fakes."
6/26/95 - "I am quite anxious to see the film. I am no
stranger to cadavers, having done all of the
photography for a college lab manual on anatomy and
physiology, so there are things I want to look for
when I finally do see it."
7/1/95 - "Suffice it to say that I am court qualified as an
expert on this, and have given testimony on imaging
in a number of federal cases. I've written twelve
books on photography, and have two on digital image
manipulation in preparation right now for two
different major publishers."
8/95 - "BTW, I'm not an official spokesman for Ray. I just
told him of the questions raised in this thread and
posted his response because I know he doesn't have
time to."
8/18/95 - "I have received full cooperation from Ray Santilli
in my efforts to date this film."
6/28/95 - "I wish Ray would be more forthcoming with
information."
8/31/95 - "I'm the guy in charge of investigating the film.
I've got lots of info that isn't public yet."
8/31/95 - "I am not involved in the sale of the video, in fact
I should point out that I do not work for Ray, and am
doing this on my own initiative."
9/95 - "I do have exclusive right to do an AUTHORIZED book."
9/95 - "I have no vested interest in how it turns out. As
for the book, I've already written fourteen books,
and I am not rich. I expect to make enough from this
book to cover my time and efforts expended, but
that's likely to be all."
11/1/95 - "My motivation is primarily getting at the truth.
Secondarily, I hope to make money on a book. But I
could write the book regardless of anything else, and
whether the film proves to be real or a hoax."
9/13/95 - "So far none of the magazines I have approached about
writing this has even bothered to return my calls or
faxes." "My agent is trying to shop around a book
proposal, but so far no interest."
9/95 - "I was hired onto this project because of my
credentials, and my acknowledged expertise in the
field."
Bob is a zoologist. No, wait, Bob's a biologist. No, wait, Bob's an
autopist. Nope, sorry, Bob's an author/photographer (and photoanalysis
expert). No, sorry, Bob's a zoologist/biologist/author/photographer who
has performed autopsies!
How fortunate we are to have exactly the right person, with exactly all
the right qualifications that we need, at exactly the right time that we
seem to need them!
Bob is not a UFO investigator or researcher. Bob is not Ray's
spokesperson but he was "hired on" to this project. Bob has no vested
interest in this project but he does have an exclusive book deal with
Ray Santilli and has been trying to get magazine articles published on
this topic. Lastly, Bob has received full cooperation from Ray but Bob
wishes Ray was also more forthcoming. Is all of that clear?
Good. So, if that is who Bob Shell is, and we have it in his own words,
then the next most reasonable question to ask would be how did Bob get
involved in this Santilli Autopsy Film/Video thing??? In Bob's own word
this is how Bob got involved:
6/28/95 - "I have exchanged telephone calls and e-mail with Ray
Santilli about the dating of this film."
7/5/95 - "My reason for offering to help in this matter was
that it was obvious from the documents I saw that Ray
Santilli was not going to the right people at Kodak."
9/2/95 - "The first thing I did when I was asked by Ray to get
involved and date this film..."
9/2/95 - "Well, I first heard about the film, I guess it must
have been right around the beginning of the year this
year early in the year, just from vague rumors that
this film had appeared somewhere. [...] And I
tracked down Ray Santilli and offered him my
services.
11/8/95 - "I am the photographic expert that Ray Santilli has
asked to work on verification of the so-called Roswell footage."
Ray asked Bob. Nope, Bob asked Ray. Bob and Ray, Ray and Bob. Is all
of that clear?
Good. How did Bob approach this project?
6/28/95 - "I would like for this film to be the real thing. I
know that the UFO phenomenon is real, so that part is
academic to me, but I would like to prove to the
scientific community that there is something there
worthy of serious study."
6/30/95 - "I'm waiting to inspect the actual original film,
which I will have the opportunity to do in a couple
of weeks according to Ray. If I am satisfied that
there is no doctoring, I will go on record as
endorsing the dating. I will not put my hard-earned
reputation as a photographic expert on the line
easily.
Wonderful, a rigorously scientific and critical-minded approach. Now
that we know (in Bob's own words) who Bob is, how Bob got involved and
how Bob approached this project (the one he was "hired on" to) let's now
look at how this played out in terms of actual results.
What did Bob determine about the Ray Santilli Autopsy film and how did
he make those determinations?
8/95 - "The film used was off the shelf Cine Kodak Super XX
High Speed Panchromatic Safety Film, not a special
military formulation. How do we know this? The
camera man says that's what he used, that's what the
labels on the cans say, and the edge marking match.
No question of film type.
We should properly disregard the unverified cameraman's opinion (we'll
deal with that in another section) since it is not a scientific element.
Similarly, since the film canisters are merely rumored to exist we will
disregard them as representing items of evidence. Which leaves us with
the film edge markings.
How were the film edge markings established?
6/29/95 - "After writing this I got an e-mail from Ray asking
me to call him. He has faxed me the film edge
photocopy. The marking are a solid delta and a solid
square. Based on the information provided to me by
Kodak, this positively dates the camera negative from
which the markings came as of 1947 manufacture from
Rochester, NY."
6/30/95 - "On PRELIMINARY study of photocopies of sections of
the film, the edge markings do, in fact, indicate
1947 as the year of manufacture. I will not go on
record as verifying the date until I see some of the
actual film."
7/1/95 - "Ray has provided me with photocopies of strips of
the film. The edge markings on some of the film are
definitely of 1947 manufacture. The edge markings on
some of the film are slightly different, and I am
still working with people at Kodak who are checking
their archives for information on this particular
edge marking code. My reputation in this industry
took thirty years to build, so I do not put it on the
line lightly."
8/19/95 - "I have been hard at work on this film. I have now
physically examined a section of the film..."
"...this film was not manufactured in 1927 or 1967,
this clearly leaves us with only 1947 as an option."
"The image quality, lack of fog, and grain structure
apparent in the film lead me to the conclusion that
this film was exposed and processed while still quite
fresh, which would be within a "window" of three or
four years."
"Based on this, I see no reason to doubt the
cameraman's claim that this film was exposed in June
and July of 1947, and processed "a few days later".
"From my own research on the physical characteristics
of the film, I am willing to go on record as giving a
95% probability that the film is what the cameraman
claims it to be. I am only hedging 5%, because I
still want secondary chemical verification from Kodak
based on the chemical "signature" of the film.
"I do not put my name on a statement like this
lighty, and it is only after very careful
consideration, and detailed examination of the film,
that I do so at this time.
8/19/95 - "I'm 95% or better convinced that it was shot when he
says it was."
8/31/95 - "Based on my investigation, I give a 95% scientific
probability that the film was manufactured, exposed
and processed in 1947. That's my professional
opinion about the film."
"The 95% probablilty was reached by careful analysis
of the films physical characteristics."
9/3/95 - "My work thus far has been a physical examination of
the film. It is and has been repeatedly stated by me
to be PRELIMINARY work. I can not help it if others
blow it out of proportions. My job is simply to take
film supplied to me and determine, as accurately as
possible, the date of manufacture and time frame of
exposure and processing. That is what I am working
on, but as with any real research, this takes time,
and people are continually harassing me wanting
results now. Science doesn't work that way, and it
may be some time before definitive answers are
available. We chose not to sacrifice film frames with
the creature in them for my preliminary work, but
have instead used nearby frames from the same
continuous strip of film."
As matters developed we were clearly told that we did not have to rely
on the cameraman's unverified word, we did not have to rely on writings
on the unverified film canisters and we did not have to rely on the
analysis of the unverified photocopied film edge markings. Bob
personally had a piece of film with which he could perform a real
science-oriented analysis of the physical characteristics.
This science-oriented analysis of the physical characteristics thus
provided us, by way of Bob, with a "95% scientific probability" of the
real pedigree of the film.
This is excellent! But just to make sure we haven't missed something
along the way, for Science's sake, we should examine the actual
scientific methodology Bob used to make the "95% scientific probability"
determination.
We'll use this statement from Bob to guide us on our path:
10/95 - "Investigative journalism is a skill. To me it is
obvious that you check details."
Fabulous, now what exactly was examined and how exactly was it tested?
10/95 - "So far I have been given two short strips of film.
They consist of three frames each, and are badly
damaged, both being torn on one side."
Two strips of film! We thought it was one strip of film but two strips
is even better. Both torn on one side, that's not good. Naturally we
hope it isn't the side that contains the edge codes, or we hope the
damage is not great. After all, if the damage was great and/or the edge
codes were somehow not present we would certainly have been told muchearlier, right?
9/2/95 - "The film itself is a film called Kodak Super XX
which is a high speed type of film. The film was
introduced in the early 40's and was discontinued in
1957. Now, we know from the edge code which is a
geometric code using two geometric symbols to denote
year of manufacture.
Good, we've been given the impression that the actual codes were present
and available for analysis. This is very good news.
10/95 - "The geometric codes appear throughout the rolls of
film, as they do on any Kodak film, but I have so far
only seen them in photocopies of strips of film
supplied to me by Ray. The strips I have do not show
them, and neither does the strip which Bob Kiviat
has."
Uh-oh, Bob's strips don't show the edge strips. BOTH strips don't show
the edge codes. Don't show them? Sounds odd. What does "do not show
them" really mean? They either are there or they are not there, right?
10/95 - "No, the strips I have do not have the geometric code
on them."
No codes!? Then how could a "95% scientific probability" be established
(and why didn't we learn of the missing edge codes much earlier)?
10/11/95 - "If you bend film and it breaks, it is on acetate
propionate or cellulose nitrate base. Cellulose
nitrate wasn't used for 16 mm film except on special
order. Acetate propionate has a characteristic
vinegar-ish smell. Triacetate has no odor. This
film stinks!!!! I don't need an elaborate lab to
recognize different varieties of acetate. The human
nose is far more sensitive than most lab equipment."
Bob sniffed the film... Bob, sniffing the film, thus produced a "95%
scientific probability" of its authenticity. Bob did no chemical
testing at all. Bob did no scientific testing at all.
11/7/95 - "Why would a supposed UFO believer work so hard to
disbelieve this case, when it has all the earmarks
of being the real thing for a change?"
Is there any hope for the edge markings? What about the film Strip that
Nathan at JPL was given?
9/3/95 - "I am working with no one at JPL or NASA. To the
best of my knowledge, Bob Nathan of JPL looked at the
film for FOX in a totally unofficial capacity, said
he could do nothing with it, and returned it to FOX."
10/11/95 - "The strips I have and the one Bob Kiviat [FOX] has
have no edge markings, so we must at the moment take
Ray's word for the markings."
10/11/95 - "Yes, the strip Bob Kiviat has is also minus one
edge. I'm told that much of the film is in this
condition. However, that may argue more for it
being genuine than the other way round. The missing
edge is not the side on which the geometric code
would appear."
That's odd, the edge codes should be present on the side of the film
strip that isn't missing yet they aren't there. This is especially odd
since those "geometric codes appear throughout the rolls of film, as
they do on any Kodak film..." Perhaps this will be explained at a later
date???
Nope, no hope (at the moment) for the edge markings. There aren't any
edge markings and for all we know there never were any edge markings.
Apparently, then, the "95% scientific probability" determination
requires no science whatsoever, no verifiable or repeatable scientific
methodology whatsoever, and in fact involves nothing more than merely
sniffing the film.
What a bummer. Can Kodak help in any way?
8/4/95 - "Yesterday, Kodak agreed to do the tests if Ray will
provide a section the film for them to test."
9/95 - "The people I am working with at Kodak will do the
tests as soon as I get a section of film which
meets their specifications, and they have agreed to
do so at no charge."
Great! Okay, Ray, how about some film? (No film from Ray...)
8/31/95 - "In reality, the timetable is not up to me, but to
Kodak who is doing things at their own corporate
speed."
Almost a month passes, no film from Ray, why is Bob blaming Kodak? We
can only wonder and heed:
6/26/95 - "It is dangerous for people to say that Kodak has
done this, or that, without proof from Kodak, and
Kodak will indeed take a very dim view of someone
represents that they have done something they have
not done."
Yes indeed, a dim view...
Continued Part 2