Alien Autopsy

I've been contemplating something of which has perplexed my mind since youth; it pertains simply the Alien Autopsy which we should all be familiar with. Simply put, it's been denounced as a hoax by current special affects experts who state it's fallacies and unbelievability through virtue of fact that they themselves could construct an alien of much better standard; however, could they have in 1947? There is a 50 year time difference, a time difference nobodies seems to bring to light.

Luxifero.

Seems to me it has NOT been proven a Hoax, except the 'Tent Footage', which Santilli openly announced he does not support that footage as with the original Autopsy footage.

So, if the original AA film has been disproven by proof from an associate of its production then I'd like to know where I can find this new info?

Further, this one's been discussed many-many times in my short time here as a member of ATS..so you may get a bit of flack on opening this thread..but I hope you don't.

Dallas

This new name is just a puesdonym, I've been on this site for years, and I'm sure there are those who know who I am, matters little as it will.

My thread simply adresses an aspect which is forgone much to often and that regarding the technical scrutiny of the autopsy, praticularly if it were possible techonologicaly to create a dummy of it's standard. My interest was only sparked by the case of the British Computer hacker and his claims of U.S. involvment in secret back-engineering of spacecraft, other than that, I'll leave you loones alone !!

Luxifero.

This alien was never convincing to me, and has been debunked all too much.

The alien doesn't fit the common description of abductees too well and seams were visible.

The Autopsy procedures were very unlikely and this picture would have been in color.

Hi there.

Well then I suppose you found the wrong thread. I heard that speech too on BBC. But it's not what this thread is about.

Dallas

Respect your opinion as always. But there is no real meat to the debunkingness in your words that I can see?

Dallas

The main problem is that the film could be authenticated as originating in 1947 but it has not. If it was indeed shot in 1947 then it does seem that it must be real as we could not have created so good a hoax at that time. Think about the SFX in movies back then and this is rather clear.

The owners did submit a few frames but not any with anything of importance on them so the question remains open. And I am with you Luxifero in that most of the 'debunking' assumes this film was made in modern times.

When most people ask the question of why the film has not be officially dated (Kodak has a standing offer to do the work for free) the answer they get is that the film is fake. Personally I can see a few other possible answers perhaps stemming from the reaction the film got when shown to the experts.

Or, if you lean towards the conspiracy side of things, the owners have been told to keep it away from the public.

A.T
(-)

I read alot on the Alien Autopsy video, and I am basically just agreeing with the general concentious, in my personal opinion it looks fake...to me at least.

The alien interview video left me alot more convinced.

I'm sure you ran into the same site that debunked this, and i'm basically just saying what they have said.

The video has been debunked well enough to satisfy me, I agree with the reasoning behind the debunking and believe there's more convincing evidence out there.

I have an Eastman Kodak man on tape after reviewing the film piece. He says 47, 67 or 87 but real film.

Dallas

Alien Interview and 'Victor' has still to be disproven as well. Certainly that I have been made aware of anyway.

I thought the set-up for the video was poor but not the DNI video itself or how Victor came into contact to bring in out of A51.

Dallas

Dallas,

I am aware of the film codes they are a big reason why I still have an open mind on the subject. But what we still need is a couple of frames of the body tested by Kodak. If that came back 47 then everyone would have to take a step back and reconsider.

What I also wonder about is two things: One, could anyone other than Kodak do the required tests? If so then the owners might have had it done elsewhere to avoid public knowledge. And Two, when was the film originally discovered? Film has a limited shelf life so the date of filming has to be somewhere in the area of those codes. I think we can ignore the '67 but that '87 could be investigated.


I have another reason for wondering if the film is real, but it is the sort of thing that draws mocking in this Forum so I would rather not mention it again. There is a thread on this very topic that is not all that far down the list where I did explain for anyone who is interested.


A.T
(-)


[edit on 7/24/05 by Alexander Tau]

I'm pulling down a copy now, to have a closer look at it.

I seem to recall Speilberg saying that if it was a fake he'd hire the people who faked it.

Just because "They" say something doesn't mean what "They" say is true. I don't recall that it was debunked - just ridiculed on a few radio shows by people who didn't sound like they knew what they were talking about - surely nobody I ever heard of or respected. Then the whole thing is dropped from the media a bit too fast for me.

I'm still open to it - must be skeptical and objective - but open...

They won't reconcider it - to them it has been discredited - so why bother..

Ok, I watched the film about a few times the last two pausing it a lot.

At :26 sec into the film the Clock shows 10:05
At 1:50 to :52 Screen goes white When it returns Clock is at 10:20
At 2:33 Clock seems to be at 10:22
At 3:11 Clock seems to be at 10:24
At 3:26 Clock seems to be at 10:25
At 4:10 to :13 Screen white
At 4:50 first incision - fluid (blood) Drips
At 5:09 Clock shows 10:40
At 5:24-27 screen blocked - white
At 7:00-:09 screen blanks
At 9:00 to :04 screen blanks
At 10:53 to :59 to screen blanks
At 11:15 to :16 screen blanks
At 11:20 First shot of 3rd man in room
(making Notes, 11:23 Shows other two men)
At 11:31 Clock seems to be at 11:27.40
At 12:01 to :02 screen blanks
At 12:30 to :33 screen blanks
12:40 to :42 screen blanks
12:49 Clock shows 11:30
13:04 to :08 screen blanks
14:07 to :08 screen blanks
14:28 to:30 screen blanks
14:35 to 39 screen blanks
16:42 ends

A lot of the screen blanks are the camara man trying to get a better position in things.
I noticed No seams or anything like that.

When did phone cords start to Coil?
Why is observer outside room wearing mask?
Can the Mike hanging from the Ceiling (at 16:26) be dated?

With only a few minor points, I have no reason to question it's validity.
I spotted a total of 4 people not including the camara man, I know there is a LOT of serious tallent out there, but know of none that could manufacture a film like this - and keep quiet about it.

[edit on 7/24/2005 by dancer]

Originally posted by Luxifero
I've been contemplating something of which has perplexed my mind since youth; it pertains simply the Alien Autopsy which we should all be familiar with. Simply put, it's been denounced as a hoax by current special affects experts who state it's fallacies and unbelievability through virtue of fact that they themselves could construct an alien of much better standard; however, could they have in 1947? There is a 50 year time difference, a time difference nobodies seems to bring to light.

Luxifero.

i have the video want me to upload it?

I guess I am just a little more optimistic than you Dancer, if the film is ever proven to have been made in 1947 I think a lot of people will reconsider. Of all the debunking I have read I have yet to see anyone suggest it could have been faked in 47.

When did phone cords start to Coil?
Why is observer outside room wearing mask?
Can the Mike hanging from the Ceiling (at 16:26) be dated?

I do not have the book anymore but #1 and #3 have been found to have existed in that time frame. In fact the military made significant use of that sort of phone/cord.

For #2, I would suggest plain old fear. When dealing with an unknown it is always better to be cautious. Granted a mask is not much protection but for psych reasons alone it would help to overcome fear.


A.T
(-)


[edit on 7/25/05 by Alexander Tau]

Some of the hoaxers came forward and addmited to being part of it all.

Do you have any specific information on this Shorty because I have not heard about it.


A.T
(-)

Originally posted by Alexander Tau
Do you have any specific information on this Shorty because I have not heard about it.

I'll certainly have a look for you, although, it was a TV show in which they were interviewed and admitted to be hoaxers, but I should imagine there is something on the net. I'll have a look.

I've had a look and can't find anything about it. Sorry guys

[edit on 25-7-2005 by shorty]

For what it's worth, my grandmother is an RN. I asked her opinions on the film. Let me try to paraphrase what she said:

"You really couldn't tell if it was real by looking at it. The camera is too far away. Practiced surgeons develop a very distinct set of hand motions when they're working, and it's perfectly obvious when it's an actor on screen pretending to be a surgeon. Shows like ER use actors for the full body shots, but any time they do a closeup of their hands, they bring in medical professionals for the shoot. With the autopsy video, nothing that would indicate that the procedure is fake, or confirm whether the people in it are medically trained is ever on camera."

So, I realize that's not especially conclusive either way, but there it is for those who wanted the opinion of a medical professional.

I don't think it could have been faked even in '87
(If it was faked I would certainly like to shake the hands of the guys who did it - and extend to them a cyber handshake).

The manner of the examination, and the confidance of motions indicate to me that the personel involved had under taken simmilar tasks in the past and that it was not faked. These motions suggest a familiarity with the procedures, I'm rather certain that if they were actors there would have been moments of hesitation during the film.

The fact that the right leg was badly damaged also reinforces this opinion.

We must remember that this was not intended to be a video of an autopsy, it was intended to document a first ever event - never intended for public viewing. Surely if this was done today much more detail and effort to detail would be used.

One of the things the debunkers claimed was that the phone cord seen was not in use until the 50's - it is nice to know that their stance on that is incorrect. (Even if it was a fake film, I like to think that the makers would have accurately set the stage - .