It's an enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a very bizarre press release. The single page is headed up with the Disney logo, Mickey's hands stretched into the warmest of platonic embraces. 'The Walt Disney Company today recalled 3.4 million copies of the video of The Rescuers, after the company discovered the movie contained two frames with an objectionable background.'

The press release tells us that the corrupted videos were only released in America and Canada and goes on to assure us that 'under ordinary viewing circumstances, the image cannot be seen since they advance at the rate of 30 frames per second on video.' Don't despair. With a freeze-frame, and a vivid imagination it is possible to see something vaguely suggestive. What exactly is another matter.

The London press office seems as bemused as we are. What can be so disgusting that it demands the recall of 3.4 million videos? We couldn't possibly say, says Amanda, Disney's PR. Anyway, it's nothing to worry about. Why's that? 'We have nothing to do with videos. Why not try the Helpline in America.'

Anyway, she says, this kind of thing happens all the time. Really? The Guardian's timeless film critic Derek Malcolm says he can't recall a film ever being recalled. 'Think of Tesco or Sainsbury,' says PR Amanda. 'If tins of baked beans have been spiked with glass, they simply recall them. What's the difference?'

One difference is that people don't want to eat broken glass. But, call me prurient, if I hear my video of The Rescuers has been spiked with naughty images, I'd want to keep hold of it - there's the entertainment value for starters and, who knows, in years to come a pornographic Disney movie may be worth something.

'Uhhmm,' says Amanda in the nicest possible way. And she giggles, but that's off the record. 'I think you should phone our people in the US.'

'Hello, sir. Can I help you? You want to return your video?' No, I want to know why I'm supposed to return the video. 'I'm sorry, sir, but we've not been told what the offending item is. I really can't say more, sir.'

My woman in America sounds tired. What time is it? 'It's 4.06 in the morning, sir. Yes, I am a little tired. There have been a helluvalot of calls through the night.' And have the callers offered any clues to the problem? 'Well, sir, some have watched it. Yes, that's true. Some have suggested that private parts of the human body are concealed in two of the frames.'

The allegations are becoming serious. Time to put on the old investigative cap. Has Disney been involved in anything like this before? Yes, indeed. The Washington Post has monitored a history of alleged subversion, sabotage and smutty subliminal messages. There's The Little Mermaid for instance - freeze the movie, apply that vivid imagination, and there you have it - Ariel's wedding ceremony conducted by an aroused priest. Rubbish, says Disney, that's just his knobbly knee popping out of his cassock. Well what about Aladdin urging 'Good teenagers, take off your clothes.' Oh come off it, snorts Disney - everyone knows that Aladdin is saying 'Scat. Good tiger. Take off and go.' So he mumbles a bit...

OK then, what about in The Lion King when a cloud of dust swirls and swoops and briefly settles into the word 'SEX'? Or the complaint that on the laser disc of Who Framed Roger Rabbit viewers are confronted with full-frontal nudity and, even more disturbing, Disney head honcho Michael Eisner's home phone number.

So who's been logging the complaints? Step forward the American Life League, a 300,000-strong fundamentalist Christian group. The League first took an interest in Disney when the British film Priest was released, lambasting what it considered to be a distortion of Catholicism. Since then it has put Disney under the microscope. Spokeswoman Tracey Casale says: 'The Walt Disney Company claims to be a provider of wholesome family entertainment, but the message is not wholesome, and it is not fun.' It has also attacked Disney for providing the partners of gay employees with health benefits. A scan of the American Life League's Internet site reveals that as well as challenging the right to abortion, it also tackles big issues under big banner headlines like 'Non-white children - Bad for the world's future?' Until recently Disney spokesman Rick Rhoades wasn't having any of the complaints. It's a vision thing, he said: people are seeing things that aren't there. 'It's just ridiculous to think that we'd put out a movie containing something less than a wholesome image.'

Which takes us back to the mystery of The Rescuers, a movie about a couple of courageous mice who try to rescue a little girl from kidnappers. This time Disney is not disputing its two frames of filth (our Hollywood Deep Throat suggests it could be a pair of breasts). Are we talking about a new movie of The Rescuers? No, it's the same one released in 1977, says Disney. The offending image was inserted into the film more than 20 years ago, but no one could see it when it was shown at the cinema. Although the video was first released in 1992, that version wasn't corrupted because it was taken from a different print.

Why the sudden recall? 'To keep our promise to families that we can trust and rely on Disney brand to provide the finest in family entertainment.' At what expense? No one is saying, but it must be many millions of dollars. Disney insists that the 'objectionable image' was discovered internally and the withdrawal of the videos has nothing to do with the American Life League.

Whatever, the godfather of public relations Max Clifford says it's a ridiculous response. 'If we're just talking about a pair of boobs, or a naked body, it's an extremely expensive over-reaction. Young children see this all the time on holiday, on the beaches.' He says Disney should have brazened it out, allowed its record to speak for itself. 'You think of Disney and you think of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. You could never accuse them of sexploitation. The worry is that once you go down this road, you're vulnerable to any religious group who can find hidden messages in anything.'

He thinks the very act of withdrawal makes Disney look ludicrously prudish. 'It'll just annoy people won't it? They'll think what on earth is wrong with these people, are they from a different planet.'

Clifford says the more he thinks about it the more he wonders what Disney is playing at. It simply doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, there is another agenda. What could he possibly mean? Well, he says, and this is just conjecture, 'it could be a carefully orchestrated PR campaign'. You mean the type of self-created tale that Clifford himself has so often spun to the press? 'Yes, exactly. It only makes sense if they desperately want publicity. If, even more than ever, they want to be seen as whiter than white.'

Clifford could have a point. With DreamWorks 'animated movies' taking off so spectacularly, it's more important than ever for Disney to retain its unique selling point - clean, family cartoons. 'Unless they know something we don't," says Clifford. 'Unless they know there is going to a real, huge outcry around the corner, and they are being pre-emptive getting their strike in first.'