Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

Can anyone figure out what material he mentions right before germanium and palladium? It sounds like "teddy-ride" to me. I can't think of any element that sounds similar to that.

OP, thanks for sharing some cool videos. I have no idea if this stuff is true but it was fun to watch.

Blessings!

EDIT: See 8:15 on the first full interview video.

originally posted by: Emerys

Wow. This thread. My gut is telling me this is 100% the real deal, but my mind has seen so much fake stuff for so long, it doesn't want it to be reall. I think I need a drink and to let this just sink in. This could very well be everything we have all wanted for so long, BAM! Right in front of us. Or it could just be more disinformation..

Compare the YouTube video to this:



I'm of the belief that the prop is a replica of the "alien" in the pictures. It's obvious to anyone who focuses on details that it is not the prop in those photos. The skin texture, moving eyelids, jaw structure, etc. do not match.

So the question becomes... why was a prop created and sold at KMart that is so similar to the "alien" in the photos?

originally posted by: DarkATi
Can anyone figure out what material he mentions right before germanium and palladium? It sounds like "teddy-ride" to me. I can't think of any element that sounds similar to that.

I addressed that in this post.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Roxxo
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

They're from a video posted earlier in the thread.

40 seconds in the eyes are open wide. 44 seconds in the eyes appear to have narrowed.

I'll have to watch the Boyd Bushman video again to see if his pictures show the apparent blinking.

Evidence like this is what everyone should be focusing on. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether or not the old man is telling the truth.

The changing eyelids on the left eye are definitely interesting. Also, if you pay attention to the right eye when the head is turned, it appears to be more closed as well.

I don't want to read more posts about "this is a prop, we've already found the photo!" when the prop doesn't actually match the pictures 100%. I don't care if it's "very similar." There is no way to know if a fake alien prop was made based off of the real photos just to mislead the general public and, yet again, leave the "it's a hoax" fall-back explanation that the government loves to create. Even the most similar prop posted in this thread still has some notable differences and isn't close enough for me to definitively say "yep, that's the same prop."

Totally and completely agree 100% with your assertion. Why discuss if the prop was made before or after the video was shot, IF WE STILL HAVENT PROVED ITS A PROP in the original photos?

Does it look similar? Yup. Does it look identical? ABSOLUTELY NOT. There are differences. And I have yet to see any kind of props like this sold at Kmart. There have been NO KMART store links provided.

Why is the photo conveniently named "Kmart Alien", by whoever s PRIVATE PHOTOBUCKET account?

Why have I seen NO PACKAGING from Kmart for this prop? Surely there would be an elaborate box for something like this.

How much would such an elaborate prop with a lever at the back of the head to make the eyes blink cost?

Special effects props ARE VERY EXPENSIVE because LATEX IS VERY EXPENSIVE.

Does not make sense that a prop of such high quality, and clearly so expensive would ever be sold at walmart

But heres the real kicker: NONE OF THESE REASONS EVEN MATTER, BECAUSE THE PROP DOES NOT MATCH THE ORIGINAL ET IN THE VIDEO.

OG

a reply to: OrionsGem

Aliens then are pretty much indistinguishable from toy props I suppose. Maybe the prop isn't a prop after all.

a reply to: Answer

So the question becomes... why was a prop created and sold at KMart that is so similar to the "alien" in the photos?

How about because the prop was used for the hoax?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: OrionsGem

Aliens then are pretty much indistinguishable from toy props I suppose. Maybe the prop isn't a prop after all.

Seriously we just don't know. We have tried to figure it out on this thread, but the prop explanation is not conclusive, they don't compare. In fact, as you said, we don't know if that's a prop at all (although it does look crudely painted onto latex)

If this is a hoax it would be in the hoax bin. Its not. Its still here. Does that tell you anything? THE PROP PHOTOS AND THE ORIGINAL ET DO NOT MATCH.

Im not blindly believing this is a real ET, but Im also not believing this is a hoax. No proof has been presented to tell me either way.

OG

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Answer

So the question becomes... why was a prop created and sold at KMart that is so similar to the "alien" in the photos?

How about because the prop was used for the hoax?

Im sorry but thats just your opinion, stop stating hoax as a fact?


Why cant you admit what your posting is not fact, but an opinion? This tactic may sway newbees, but really? Come on now!

Whats next? A keychain sized alien that you will claim was used in the video?

I suppose they shrunk the human hand as well to match your shrunken prop?

How about because theres no proof its a hoax.

OG

originally posted by: OrionsGem
Has anyone been able to provide an explanation for the original alien blinking his eyes in the photos?

OG

If you change the area to gray-scale and adjust the contrast and brightness, it appears to be a raised piece laid on top of the eye to give the illusion of the eye closing. You can also see a reflection of a raised strip along the bottom, although it's not as apparent. It could be strips of latex or clay. That's one possibility. Also, as was pointed out, the reflection on the eyeball changes position which could mean the eye area was edited and "squished" with some type of photo software. That's another possibility.


I choose the default of it not being alien because there's no foundational basis for that argument. There's certainly not undeniable evidence in this photograph. It's still up to those that believe to provide evidence of that.

a reply to: OrionsGem

Give it up. You're holding on too tightly to the web that ensnares you.

a reply to: Shadoefax
The word he used was Telluride. A Telluride is a compound of Tellurium, like Germanium Telluride [GeTe], a semiconductor material with other interesting properties.

lol ofcourse i bring up the idea that the prop was created in the likeness of the real thing and someone else mentions it and gets the attention of the mention. typical ATS

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OrionsGem

Give it up. You're holding on too tightly to the web that ensnares you.

What Web what are you talking about? Give what up? Give up pointing out the fact that the attempts to explain away this case as a hoax HAVE FAILED over and over?

OG

originally posted by: jidnum
lol ofcourse i bring up the idea that the prop was created in the likeness of the real thing and someone else mentions it and gets the attention of the mention. typical ATS

i saw your initial past jidnum. I agree with you and the credits all yours

a reply to: OrionsGem

Give up pointing out the fact that the attempts to explain away this case as a hoax HAVE FAILED over and over?

That's your opinion and you're entitled to be wrong if you wish. Good luck in the future with your confirmation bias issues.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OrionsGem

Give up pointing out the fact that the attempts to explain away this case as a hoax HAVE FAILED over and over?

That's your opinion and you're entitled to be wrong if you wish. Good luck in the future with your confirmation bias issues.

nope its a FACT that no concrete proof had been presented of a hoax. ..to think that the prop explanation is proof of a hoax is delusional. But thanks for wishing me good luck.

OG

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Answer

So the question becomes... why was a prop created and sold at KMart that is so similar to the "alien" in the photos?

How about because the prop was used for the hoax?

It's not hard to see that the "alien" in the photos is not identical to the prop.

That has been suggested multiple times and it's flat-out wrong. I don't understand how people can flatly make that claim when it's so obviously not true. Any idiot can see that it's not the same. You have to genuinely WANT to mislead people to claim it's the same.

This isn't how debunking works. You don't find something that's "close enough" to the subject of the photos and declare "Here! We have solved the mystery! It's fake!"

Haven't read through all the threads here but I'd love to believe it. Unfortunately I've seen the prop of the alien before. They just threw a dark model ink over it for depth and luminescence. The 45 min/hr correction shows they have some basic AV skills and it's hard to believe they didn't know how to operate the zoom in function as well as produce a more clear video. For some spectacular photos I would've stored them better. But they don't look aged evenly none the less.

Curious as to why so many are quick to call truth in a number of these claims. Almost 100% of the time there's something in the story that completely contradicts another. These Theories/Truths are like gladiators in an arena, only one can be a victor.

originally posted by: Jenisiz
Haven't read through all the threads here but I'd love to believe it. Unfortunately I've seen the prop of the alien before. They just threw a dark model ink over it for depth and luminescence.

Already been covered. You're incorrect.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Jenisiz
Haven't read through all the threads here but I'd love to believe it. Unfortunately I've seen the prop of the alien before. They just threw a dark model ink over it for depth and luminescence.

Already been covered. You're incorrect.

I'm incorrect in something I've seen first hand LOL. This alien was sold at Trails and purchased as a Halloween prop at a party. I've even seen it in two "Disclosure" videos