Well, there you are. A massive 47 people responded to our little poll, and by a majority of 46 to 1 decided that the 'Alien Autopsy' film was a total hoax, thus proving that Magonia readers are, as always, amongst the sharpest knives in the box! One person thought there might be some element of reality to it.

As I pointed out earlier, American researcher Kevin Randles was getting a bit upset that some 15% of the respondents to a similar poll on his website replied that they thought there was some element of truth in the film. I have to point out that there were over 540 responses to Kevin's poll.

Kevin raged, "Are 78 of you crazy?" Well, I would never denounce the solitary dissenting voice in the Magonia poll in such strong terms, in fact I'm almost a little disappointed that more of you didn't show an element of defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence!

However, like much that we thought had been discredited in the UFO world, it seems that the Alien Autopsy might be coming round again. Those of you who keep up with the cutting edge of American ufology via the UFO UpDates list, will be aware that some things called 'monotremes' have been exciting a bit of interest.

Now my Oxford English Dictionary defines 'monotreme' as: "member of lowest order of mammals with one vent for urinary, genital and digestive organs". Those of us in the higher orders of mammals - which includes, I think, most ufologists - may find this a rather unsavory state of affairs and ask what's all this got to do with UFOs?

If you've read Peter Rogerson's review of a posthumously published book by the late Mac Tonnies - The Cryptoterrestrials - you'll see that the idea of a separately evolved, intelligent, technologically developed life-form sharing the Earth with us seems to be the the théorie du jour amongst a small element of US ufology. Their proposition is that UFOs are real 'structured craft' (no room for psychosocial ideas here) but that as faster-than-light travel is impossible this rules out the ETH, so these craft can only come from Earth. However their characteristics are beyond any form of human technology, so there must be someone else here. (Of course, if you say 'some thing' rather than 'someone' you have a proposition very close to Jerome Clark's position on the subject!)

Part of the 'evidence' used to support this theory is our old friend the Alien Autopsy alien. Monotreme proponent Ed Gehrman proclaims:
"My thesis is that the [autopsy] creature is an evolved monotreme and somewhat resembles humans because of convergent evolution, which is an evolutionary process where organisms not closely related begin to acquire similar characteristics, a result of similar responses to similar environmental conditions"
Now 'convergent evolution' is an established scientific fact, but if we accept it for human-like creatures we have to ask where have these guys been hiding all these years? None of the proponents seem very sure about this, but the best guesses seems to be somewhere in Antarctica, under the north polar ice-cap, or deep in the oceans.

So the proposition is that a parallel form of intelligent life has evolved on Earth, which has developed advanced technology beyond anything humans are capable of, which is based on a primitive mammalian life-form which has combined anus/genitalia, which has managed to hide itself away during its entire evolution so that no trace has ever been found of it in the fossil or archaeological record, and the evidence for all this is a dodgy bit of film being hawked around by people who have admitted it is a fake.

I wonder why scientists still don't take ufology seriously?


  1. Larry A4.8.10

    Actually scientists wouldn't take ufology seriously even if it avoided all these pratfalls, ufology simply touches too many taboos in psychology, sociology, physics..

    As far as the late Mac Tonnies goes, I always found him interesting and unlike many self-styled ufology "experts" that are not (you all know who they are), he was knowledgeable of the history of the field and came across as thoughtful, undogmatic and interesting. So yes I was disappointed with the quite perplexing and obviously dead-end road that he took with his 'cryptoterrestrial' hypothesis. I would not have expected him to overlook obvious objections to his notions here. However I think Tonnies, had he not died so young, would have continued to evolve on this front and question his own tentative hypothesis here (he was never dogmatic). I think his best work lay ahead of him but his untimely death means we will never know..

  2. Anonymous4.8.10

    I remember seeing the video, when 1st released, with 2 co-workers. One co-worker could be safely described as a fundamentalist Christian.
    She said it was a demon.

    Another co-worker, a believer in all things ET, saw a real alien.

    I, on the other hand, thought it looked like a model filled with animal innards.

    While I may have been right, the downside is that I'll be trapped, like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming semi, when that alien invasion finally happens or when God cracks open the Gates of Hell & sends its demonic hoard out to ruin our days.

  3. I want to thank Magonia for the accurate description of the Monotreme hypothesis. The evolution of monotremes is not understood well because there are so few fossils to study. My conclusion is that they evolved in Antarctica and the fossils are not available.

    The Alien Autopsy has not been proved a fake no matterwhat you may have been told. It's considered a fake because very few folks have studied it close enough or examined all the relevant data. I think it a shame that the UFO community hasn't been more open to this
    fortuitous trove of evidence. Not only do we know exactly what the creatures look like, and footage of debris from their craft, but we also have a crash site and a drawing of their craft and much other spin-off information. You can
    laugh and joke all you want, but an advanced monotreme civilization is responsible for the abductions, and unknown aircraft,
    and the other creepy behavior associated with this strange phenomenon. It's a big mistake to confuse them with ET (star folk). I think your readers might think they could deal with star folk but one-holed, no teeth cousins might be
    more than they could handle.

  4. > scientists wouldn’t take ufology seriously...

    This is a tired and patently false statement. I've only been studying the UFO phenomena for 18 months and I see that numerous academics have studied aspects of ufology. Just from my own small book pile and recent online reading, I believe all these people have a PhD or MD: James R. Lewis, Isaac Asimov, Courtney Brown, Thomas Bullard, Jack Cohen, Ian Stewart, Brenda Denzler, Don Donderi, Michael Persinger, Michael Swords, Ron Westrum, Leon Festinger, J. Allen Hynek, David Brin, William Fortschen, Mickey Zucker Reichart, Michael Scott, David Jacobs, John Mack, C.G. Jung, Kenneth Ring, Michael Heiser, Paul Chambers, Harley D. Rutledge, Carl Sagan, Stuart Appelle, Peter Sturrock, Edith Fiore, John C. Lilly, J. Gordon Melton, John A. Saliba, R. George Kirkpatrick, Susan Jean Palmer, Robert Balch, Robert S. Ellwood, Ted Peters, George M. Eberhart, Michael Barkun, William Cone. Academics mentioned in my recent reading include Diana Tumminia, Cliff Pickover, Michael Lieb, Joe Lewels, Benson Saler, David Clarke, Clifford Wilson, Barry Downing, James McDonald, Robert M.L. Baker, Robert L. Hall, Alvin Lawson, Thornton Page, Frank Drake, Frank Tipler, James Harder, David Pritchard, Paul Horowitz, Michael Papagiannis, Lester Grinspoon, Alan Persky, David Hufford … and I’ll just stop here without naming hundreds of authors of academic papers listed in various bibliographies.

    You get the point: your assertion is untrue.

    > I’ll be trapped … when that alien invasion finally happens

    Try out The Alien Invasion Survival Handbook by W.H. Mumfrey. It’s very dry humour, but the author has thought about the attributes of aliens much more carefully than some of the abductee advocates I’ve read.

    > The Alien Autopsy has not been proved a fake no matter what you may have been told.

    Come on, the people who made it admitted it was faked. Give up!

  5. Terry,
    You wrote: Come on, the people who made it admitted it was faked. Give up!

    Ray Santilli has stated that he "restored"
    and recreated the footage the cameraman sold him.
    Then they mixed the footage together to create the AA. I don't believe that this is possible
    but at any rate, that still leaves the cameraman
    and his story, and the crash site he described
    and that has been found and much other very important information.

    Check out this link:

    All that info is still absolutely true. The AA is not a hoax and there isn't any hard evidence that it is. Every ufologist should reexamine their their reasons for believing that it is a hoax and perhaps even view the actual uncut footage. Folks jumped to conclusions, a serious mistake.

  6. Restored? That implies Santilli cleaned up the original footage. In fact, he said it had turned to mush ... and admits he RE-SHOT the "autopsy"!

    Mixed? That's very generous. A desperate Santilli claimed there where a few original FRAMES in the AA film -- but he wouldn't identify which frames!

    Cameraman? Santilli won't identify or produce the cameraman.

    We have: no cameraman, no film, ergo, no aliens.

    That leaves us with...nothing!

    All that non-info is sourced to Santilli and Santilli alone, who admits he mocked it all up. Yet he sold it as product!

    Come on! It's a hoax! There is zilch hard evidence it's real and mucho hard evidence it's a money-grubbing fraud!

    So how can people be jumping to conclusions when the source tells us a 1947 American military film is actually a modern fabrication done in a London apartment?

    Give up!

  7. Ray Santilli couldn't measure out a cup of sugar.
    He is talented but has no film knowledge or skills to produce the AA. His mates are less talented.
    Ray only says he restored the footage for copyright. Otherwise it's all public footage and he would have no control over future sales or use.
    Rays original story still stands as the honest and accurate narrative.
    I've know Ray for over fifteen years. The AA is a real dissection of a monoterme. Study the link I provided and view the uncut
    footage. That's all I have to say.

  8. > he restored the footage for copyright

    So you acknowledge he sold his "reenactment" footage as the real thing. Thank you.

    By the way, that is called FRAUD.


  9. Anonymous24.4.13

    I can see why you call your self terry the censor. You make no sense. Look at the eyes when the full eye covers are removed. That's probably where the creation of the contact lens were gleened from. Your more the fraud you give no proof of who made the thing and these so called creators didn't show their so called hoax. Ed has more sense then you as you ramble on with no proof then these so called dead beat scientist you read about for 18 months, who are paid to cover up the truth. The truth is you don't have to believe if the autopsy was real or not.

  10. @Anonymous

    > I can see why you call your self terry the censor. You make no sense

    If you can't make sense of facts, I can't help you.