I know of the NTSC version of the FOX special available on the Trimark label. There was a tape offerred by the british company that owns the footage, whether this is still available or not I do not know. The Trimark tape includes the ENTIRE uncut autopsy footage at the end of the programme. Whether it is real or not, it is certainly entertaining and if you haven't seen it yet, you are missing out.

The result of most serious study is that the film is more than likely a clever hoax. Special Effects artists, cinematographers, UFO researchers, and Mr. Joe Average have pointed out numerous flaws, as well as detailing potential methods of recreating the gag.

Absolutely. Fraudulant marketing is against the law. Despite the fact that the footage contains disclaimers, it's owners maintain it is genuine, therefore they create liability every time they open their mouths. Which means it is safe to assume that any make-up artists involved in the project have a stake that transcends the 'hired help' role. Trey Stokes, professional make-up artist and the man behind the 'Truly Dangerous Company' (whose link is featured on this site, much reccomended) offerred an elaboration featured elsewhere on this site.

Jack Barnett is the alias used by Santilli to describe 'The Cameraman'. The Real Jack Barnett died some years ago.

Ray Santilli, and various other sources, have detailed at least three different examinations of alien creatures, as well as footage of the crash site and some of the debri. The first is 'The Tent Footage', apparently this footage will never be shown to the general public (If you have it, or stills from it, E-Mail me.) Second is the autopsy we all know from the FOX special, third is yet another autopsy which Santilli has stated will be presented to the public eventually. The debris footage was shown on the third airing of the FOX special (as well as the video-tape), but footage of the crash site has yet to be aired.

Any reaction from the government would lend credibility to the film, inadvertently. They have learned their lesson. Most conspiracy theories are driven by government denial.

Bare in mind that most descriptions of alien bodies recovered at Roswell came to ligh after the case became hi-profile, with an enormous fame factor for anyone with that sort of information. Most known descriptions are delivered second-hand, word of mouth and many of the so-called witnesses embellish their stories given time.

I Put this question to Trey Stokes of the Truly Dangerous Company (see the GFR links page). Trey is a professional make-up artist and he offerred this insiders opinion:

myself, I can't figure out why a pro would consent to participating in such a thing. I certainly wouldn't, unless I had some kind of assurance that I was somehow immune from prosecution if there were possible fraud charges involved (and how one gets "assured" of immunity in such a thing I don't know). Or if I did the job not knowing the true nature of how the work would be used, once I became aware of it I'd likely jump up and scream that I did it without knowing it would be used in such a way.

To answer your question, if I'd signed a non-disclosure it probably wouldn't stop me from stepping forward - violating a non-disclosure agreement pales in comparison to a potential charge of conspiracy to defraud or whatever legalese might apply to this case. (But again, _I_ wouldn't take a job like that at all if I knew what it was for.)

On the other hand, if I were of an avaricious nature and was a profit participant in the whole thing, then I'd have a good reason not to say anything. Or if I was an amateur thinking this would be a good way to jump-start a career somehow... or just someone who thought it would be a laugh to pull off a grand hoax on the whole world...

But of course people do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, regardless of whether I would do them, or am able to understand them. I don't understand skiing, for example, but I can't use that as an argument to prove somebody wouldn't do it.