Written by:
Dennis W. Murphy  3/1/1996
Compuserve UID 74442,65
Email  dwmurphy@electriciti.com

I would like to present  some observations on the "Santilli Alien Dissection Film".  Specifically the "Debris" footage portion of the film that shows the two tables with the "Panels" on the table on the right and the I-beams on the table on the left.  These observations are based on the Fox video "Alien Autopsy Fact or Fiction" and several framed grabbed images from " Roswell Footage LTD" video.  These comments were initially offered up for discussion in the Compuserve Encounters Forum, section 15-MUFON.

The "Santilli Film" is either a scripted fictional film or film documentation of a real event.  In my mind the film exists as both a very elaborate hoax and a real event.  Some of my observations are based on the assumption that the "debris" are real and some are based on the assumption that the film was hoaxed.  As of the writing of this presentation the "Santilli Film" has not been conclusively proved a fake or a real event.

I have an A.S. degree in Marine Diving Technology from Santa Barbara City College.  My commercial diving experience was geared toward the offshore oil industry.  One of my skills as a diver was welding.  My welding experience involved stick arc, brazing,  MIG (Metal Inert Gas), resistance, friction and TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) processes.  I have welded materials as thin as 1/16 inch aluminum and laid down welds to fillet a 3 inch steel beam.  I have taken a course on magnetic particle and ultrasonic weld inspection at the Welding Institute in Cambridge, England.  I have had a machine shop course where I learned to use metal lathes, precision grinders, milling machines and drill presses.

Currently,  my company "Murphy Studio Furniture" designs and markets studio furniture layouts to radio stations nationwide using Autocad.   The ergonomic layout of the "Panels" and the possible proof that life exists on other planets or dimensions were the original sparks that ignited my interest in the Santilli Film.  I am not a UFOlogist, but I have always been intrigued with the UFO sightings reports and the movies they have spawned.

I-BEAMS DETAILS

An I-beam has two flanges that are connected by the web.  The first anomalous detail is found at the root portions of the I-beams.  The root is where the web meets the flanges at a right angle.  What I do not see at these locations on the I-beams is a radius.  You would have a radius at that point (the root) to prevent cracks from forming.  Any material that I know of,  that  has a crystalline structure,  will develop cracks if two planes meet at right angles.  I am assuming that from the appearance of the break in the I-beams that the material has a crystalline structure.

The second detail is the thickness of the web,  in relation to the thickness of the flanges.  I have not seen an I-beam that has a web that is as thick as the ones in the Santilli Film as compared to the thickness of the flange faces.

I have never seen anything that resembles the manufacturing technique used in the construction of the I-Beams in the Santilli film Wreck Debris footage.  I know of no manufacturing process that could be produce the multitude of details found on the I-beams.  I would discuss and rule out what could be processes for producing these beams.
 

DEBRIS MANUFACTURING OPTIONS

Milling.  Could the beams have been milled?   When milling something you start with a block of solid chunk of material and remove everything except that which you need.   Milling would be a good option if it were not for the thinness of some of the beams and the raised letters on both sides of the beams. When milling,  the cutting tool is forced against the material.  If the material is thin,  especially at a root meeting at acute right angles, the force of the tool against the material will cause it to break.  The raised lettering would have to be done with a very precise CNC (computer numeric control)  machine.  When I look at the lettering I see precise rounds as parts of the symbols.  I do not think that you can do this with current milling machines.

Extrusion.  Extrusion is out again because of the acute right angles of the roots and the raised lettering.  There are some I-beams in the film that have more than two right angled roots.  The raised lettering would be impossible.

Rolling.  Rolling is out because of the acute right angle roots and raised symbols.  Rolling implies that the final material shape is formed by passing hot material back and forth through rollers.  Again if there are acute right angles the material will break at the root during manufacturing.  To form the raised symbols the hot material would have to be passed through rollers with the symbols engraved into them.  This would mean you would only be allowed one pass through the rollers and you would have to keep the rollers clean through out the run.  The detailed definition of the symbols would argue against this as a possibility.

Molding and Casting.  At first glance molding or casting would seem the only way to make the I-beams and the panels.  Molding and casting fall apart for a number of  reasons. The things that argue against the molding are the apparent lack of weight for all the pieces that get moved around,  the acute right angles at the roots,  the thinness of the flanges of the I-beams and the finely detailed definition of the raised symbols.  The detail of the symbols on two sides of the I-beams would mean that if  the I-beams were molded  or cast you would have to use a very high density material to get the detail exhibited in the raised symbols.  High density means that the pieces would be much heavier than the indicated weight (the way in which the panels are handled).  The I-beams are handled many times and there are several times when a piece is held in one hand by pinching it between the thumb and fingers. The material that the I-beams are made of appears to be very rigid and does not show any indication of  bending while being handled in this manor.

Laser Milling.  Now this might be a valid process to form these I-beams if it was not for the super smooth appearance on the flat surfaces.  The raised symbols have many multifaceted details that exhibit a smooth fine finish to tiny areas of their facets as well.  I think all these surfaces including the ones in the symbols are too smooth for laser milling.

Foam Core.  I could see the stuff being made of foam core paperboard to solve the weight issue, but the following reasons argue against foam core:

The symbols are  presence on both sides of the webbing on the I-beams.
The crystalline nature of the break in the broken beams.
The reflectivity of the material in the break.
The rigidity of the I-beams.

When considering any of the above mentioned processes' one must think of cost.  I do not see how any of the above mentioned processes would work and if they could be made to work who would spend enough money to make them work.  If you could produce this type of detail with some process, you would be making money on producing things that would reap far greater profits than an Alien Dissection hoax film.

FILM DETAILS

There is a small I-beam that has been broken.  The broken end is on the right.  The break goes right through one of the symbols.  The break is not straight.  The break would have been straight if it had not broken in the middle of one of the symbols.  You can clearly see that the fracture line starts straight down (perpendicular to the flange faces) the face of the web of the beam until it gets to the raised symbol.  The fracture line then shifts just to the right of a raised portion of a symbol.  The fracture line skirts the raised portion of  the symbol and then it jumps back to the left and continues down to the next flange face.  The reason that the fracture line would take this course is because it is the path of least resistance for the fracture.  When the fracture line encountered the raised symbol, which can be thought of as increased thickness of the I-beam at that point,  the fracture line shifts away from the thicker material. You would have to be looking at the debris footage to understand this fine of a point.  It is a very small detail,  minute,  but this is the type of detail that says this is a for real fracture in a for real manufactured I-beam.  I cannot imagine someone planning to put this small of a detail in a hoax film.

One of the I-beams I reviewed was about 5 cm from flange to flange.  This is one of the smaller I-beams.  I noticed that it had a melted circular shaped puddle on the left end (it was orientated with the symbols going from left to right).  I have seen this puddle shape before in melted aluminum.  The thing that caught my eye was that the puddle had collapsed and the puddled area appeared thinner than the unmelted part of the I-beam in the same area. An analogy would be if you took a thin piece of Styrofoam sheet and heated the sheet with a flame  just enough in one area so that the foam lost its trapped air form.  When the area cooled off it would be thinner than the rest of the Styrofoam sheet (meaning lost volume in that area) but it would still weigh the same.

There are a lot of melted looking pieces of debris on the table.  The large blobs of debris material seen on the table look like puddles that formed when the debris material melted.  The curious thing about some of the smaller melted pieces is the shape they took after they cooled.  What catches my eye is the thickness of the puddles.   The surface tension was strong enough to counter gravity making the some of the smaller pieces thick..

Think of small drops of water in a clean pan.  If the drops are small you get a fairly round droplet. But as you increase the size of the droplet by adding more fluid, the droplet starts to flatten out and turn into a puddle because gravity pulls on the center of the droplet and forces it down.  A water droplet turns into a thin puddle.  In order to keep the appearance of the debris droplets round and thick,  the material would have to have a very high surface tension or be a really light or be really viscous.  The debris objects maintain consistent appearance characteristics in the "look" of  the way they melted and cooled.

There are large puddles of melted looking debris on the right and left side of  the table on the left.  The puddle on the right appears to be a melted I-beam because it has a hemispherical ridge running through the center of it.  This detail matches hemispherical ridges found on one flange face of all the other I-beams.   The puddle on the left end of the table does not have a ridge detail like the one on the right.  I am not sure if it is a piece of material that was sheet like or if it is just another puddle.  It looks as there is the reflection of a face in the left puddle in about the 9 o'clock position.

The raised symbols communicate some type writing. Each symbol has a myriad of detail and appears to be machine perfect.  The symbols are located on the web of the I-beams and are the same symbols on both sides except they are in reverse order.  I cannot think of a harder detail to want to undertake from a time and money standpoint if this is a hoax.  The symbols do not look phony to me.

The detail that  puzzles me most is the lack of mass  that the panels and I-beams exhibit when they are moved.  I cannot think of a material I have handled or seen handled that would be this light, exhibit properties of  rigidity,  reflectivity and the ability to show fine detail.  I get the impression from watching the film that these things are so light that the only thing that impedes their movement is air resistance.  Anything structural that exhibits a lack of starting and stopping momentum that these objects exhibit must be very light.

The solider handles the large I -beam by squeezing the flanges between his thumb and fingers. Most of the time he holds the I-beam with two hands.  There are several instances, including one where the large I-beam is held vertically and he is only holding on to the I-beam with one hand. The way in which the solider handles the large I-beam with a couple of fingers says that this I-beam is very light. Here is a problem for the hoaxer.  The bigger I-beam would have to be made out of some type of foam to make it as light as it appears.  Foam that is as thin as that on the large I-beam flanges would flex if it was twisted, squeezed or handled like the solider does in the film.  This stuff is so reflective, you would see it bend,  especially if you pinched it between two fingers at the very edge of the flange faces.  This stuff appears to be real stiff.

The solider handles the large I-beam holds most of the time with two hands so he is sure he will not drop it.  When the solider holds  the I-beam with two hands it has nothing to do with the weight of the I-beam.  When he transfers the large I-beam from hand to hand,  the receiving hands never drop or twist like they would if these I-beams weighed anything.  The best example of this is when the large I-beam is held vertically.

The panels exhibit the same weight qualities as the big I-beam.  I have made a list  of the details of these "Panels" with the six fingered hand impressions.  I am attaching an addendum to this presentation that describes those details.

One of the interesting things about the "Panels" is that they were all different.  It was a nice "touch" to make all the panels different from one another if this is a hoax.  If they are props then the prop maker had to make three different molds.  Two for the undamaged panels and one for the damaged panel.

The item that gave me some indication that the panels could be props was that they never showed the backside of the undamaged panels.  If the panels were hollow it would make the prop maker's job much simpler.

I tried to think of a test that would prove that the panels were hollow and had no back.  I looked for something like seeing the soldiers' fingers curl up inside a panel as he was handled them.  I went through the footage frame by frame over and over.  It always looked to me like his fingers never go up inside the backs of the panels, in fact I think I see just the opposite.

I did see something that I think proves that the panels have a backside that is as reflective as the front side.   It is a detail that is hard to catch because of where it happens in the video.

As you are watching the video,  the entity dissection ends and the wreck debris footage starts.  The solider is handling the forward most undamaged panel.  The lighting is coming in from the right side of the table.  The shadows from the panels on the table indicate to me that there are two light sources separated by a foot or so.  Just as the guy sets that forward most complete panel down on the table you can see the light  reflecting off the table, onto the back of the panel and then back onto the table.  If you look closely you can see that there must be a shinny surface that reflects the light from the surface of the table back down to the surface of the table and that this reflecting surface must be located on the underside of the panel.

Tying The Debris Footage to the Dissection Footage and the Cameraman's Statement

The "Panels" that have indentations for the six fingered hands in the "Debris Footage" are the most obvious link to the "Dissection Footage" that features an entity with the six fingered hands. The dissection shows how the SUEs bodies are put together,  the debris show the workings of the entity's mind.  What I would like to do now is to tie the "Debris Footage" to the Entity in the "Dissection Footage."  To do this I would like to present a chain of logic that fits a consistent theme I see reoccurring throughout both the "Debris" and "Dissection" footages.

I used Fox video "Alien Autopsy Fact or Fiction", several framed grabbed images from " Roswell Footage LTD" video and the "Cameraman's Statement".  The "Cameraman's Statement" is the story that explains when, where and why the Santilli Film was shot. This was the story given to Ray Santilli  by the "Cameraman",  the person who shot all the footage in the Santilli Film.

I am impressed by the reflectivity of all the debris and the panels.  Why would you make something so reflective?  I see two initial options to explain this reflectivity.  The first is that the debris material naturally happened to have a high reflectivity.  The second option would be that you wanted the debris to be very reflective,  so you would pick a highly reflective material to make the debris.

Lets think about the second option.  You have a creature with very large eyes and pink skin.  The enity has contact lenses that are very dark.   I am assuming that these contacts are a sunglass for a world that is brighter than its home environment.  These details indicate that this creature came from somewhere with less light than our planet.

Lets think for a moment what requirements a low light environment might place on a technologically advancing species.  By looking closely at the panels we find that there are 20 raised buttons per hand or 40 raised buttons per panel. When the hands are placed in the hand positions of the panels there are 14 raised buttons in constant contact with each hand.  The raised buttons are situated so that there are 8 buttons that touch the base of the fingers and the palm of the hand only.  It's like these 8 raised buttons are not there to be pushed because they are situated in the palms and at the base of the fingers.  So if these 8 buttons are not there to be pushed by the hand then they must be there to push against the hand.

When we look at the I-beams we see raised symbols and keyed type detail such as the raised hemispherical ridge that runs along the middle of one of the flange faces.  All this tells me that these SUEs (Santilli Unidentified Entity) used a form of Braille.  They appear to be very tactile creatures.  The panels were not only keyboards,  they appear to be a tactile interface.

A human hand is fairly sensitive and can feel something as small as .001 of and inch (.0025cm).   I would guess that the SUE's hands were less sensitive than human hands.  I base this opinion on the size of the panel buttons and on the size of the raised symbols on the I-beams.  Compared to Braille these features appear very course.

Other Details

The debris footage looks as it shot in a tent.  The tent is seen to bellows in and out.  The tent pole that has the gas mask hanging from it moves when the walls of the tent move.  This detail would indicate that this tent was setup outside and not on some sound stage.

The solider holding the debris for the cameraman has large sweat stains around his armpits.  This would tie in with the cameraman's story that states that the film was shot in the desert in the month of June.

The debris materials look manufactured because they have a radius at the ends of the flanges, machine produced raised symbols, fracture lines and highly uniform reflectivity.

What these small details argue for is a unique material with special properties.  Let me list a few of what I would call unique properties.

The material appears to melt,  but it does not appear to be burnt.  I do not see any oxidation on the melted stuff.  When the stuff breaks it does not bend or shatter.  I do not see anything that is bent.  I see only fractures along a jagged line.

The puddle of stuff on the left side of the left  table has the same reflectivity as the unmelted stuff.  What tells me this?   You can see the reflection of a man's face in about the 9 o'clock position of this puddle.

Conclusion

The "Santilli Footage"  consists of four different films that include the debris footage, the tent footage and the dissections of two different entities.  Every detail that is put in a hoax film cost money and increases the risk of exposure as a fraud.   It would seem that if this film was a hoax that there would be as little detail as possible.   There is enough detail in the debris footage to convince me that it would be expensive to produce.  If this film is a hoax it was well researched,  elaborately scripted and was therefore an expensive undertaking.

Again,  my intent in writing this is to offer up some of the details of the "Santilli Film" for discussion.  There is an on going discussion of this film in the "Encounters Forum" MUFON Section 15.
 
 

Dennis W. Murphy  3/1/1996
Compuserve UID 74442,65
Email  dwmurphy@electriciti.com

THERE ARE (2)  ATTACHMENTS
 

ATTACHMENT (1)

"SANTILLI FILM"  PANELS  DEBRIS OBSERVATIONS

The panels are about 1 1/2" thick,  are 25" wide at the top of the panel and 20" wide at the bottom of the panel.

The panels appear to be really light.  My guess is that they weight less than 2 pounds
The panels have six sides. I would label the six sides as follows.  Imagine putting a panel on a table with the hand indentations on top.  The hands in the panels are orientated as you would lay your hands in them with the left hand on the left and the right hand on the right.

The face that the hands are in I would call the Hands Face.

The face that was against the table I would call the Bottom Face.

Going clockwise around the perimeter starting at the top at 12 o'clock I would call that the Top Side. At 3 o'clock would come the Right Side.  At 6 o'clock would come the Bottom Side and at 9 o'clock would come the Left Side

The sides are perpendicular to the top and bottom faces.  The edges where the sides meet the top and bottom faces of the panels have a 3/16" quarter round radius on the edges

The panels are curved slightly in an ergonomic manner.  Curved  meaning arced slightly.

The panels have a skin or what might be called a shell that appears to be about 3/16" thick you can see this in the edge view of the broken panel.  The skin of the panels appears to have a shinny metallic crystalline composition.  It appears crystalline from the jagged way the panel broke.

The panels are not identical.

There are (6) fingered hand indentations in the panels Hands Face.

The panel indentations appear to be cast.  They are not stamped because the wrist area indentation protrudes down into the bottom side.  They are not milled because from the side view of the broken panel the skin appears to be a uniform thickness.  I would guess that the panels are custom fitted to the individual who was to use that particular panel.

There are raised buttons in the hands indentations and in a row above the tips of the finger indentations. Lets call this the first row.

The left and right hands are not the same size in a given panel.  It appears that the left hand has longer fingers and a longer palm indentation than the right hand in the same panel.  It appears that the left hand in the other panel also has the left hand longer than the right hand.  You can also look at how close the top indentation comes to the top side of the panels.  In at least two of the panels this top row left indentation is closer to the top side of the panel than the top row of the right side indentation.

The left and right hands are not symmetrical in layout of  the buttons in the hands.

There are (4) raised buttons on the panels in the palms of the hands.  (1) Button is located where the heel of human hand would be.  (1) Button is located in the center of the palm in line with the outside base of the thumb.  (2) Buttons are in a row straddling the center of the palm and in line with the inside base of the thumb. This layout appears to be the same from hand to hand and from panel to panel

There are (4) raised buttons just below the point where the base of the fingers meets with the palm of the hand.

There are (5) raised buttons (1) at the tip of each of the five fingers.

There appears to be different numbers of buttons in the first row arc indentation just above the finger tip indentations.  I count (5) buttons on one in the right hand and (6) buttons on the left hand in one of the panels.  In another panel I count (6) buttons in the top row on the right hand and three buttons in the top row of the left hand.

The panels are hollow or what I would call chambered at the top.  The chambers are separated by a 3/16" wall  and run from left to right of the panels.  There are three chambers. The first chambered area is formed and starts at the inside of the panels skin at the top side of the panel and goes to a chamber wall that follows the indentation arc that follows the bottom edge of the top row.  The second chamber starts after the 3/16" wall that follows the arc of the bottom of the top row and stops at a wall that follows the arc of the very tips of the fingers.  The third chamber starts on the other side of the second wall and ends at a wall the follows the arc of what would be on a human hand  the row of first finger tip joints.  The buttons appear to be  centered in the chambers. These observations are based on the side view of the broken panel.

Below the chambered area the panels are filled with a dark substance that has some light colored stringy stuff mixed in with the dark stuff.  From the way the dark stuff broke I would say it was hard not soft or mushy.
 

ATTACHMENT (2)

PROFESSIONAL WEBSITES WITH MORE INFORMATION

http://www.trudang.com                                                 Best explanation film was hoaxed

http://www.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/MUFON                    MUFON (Mutual UFO Network)