Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Definite INTELLIGENCE involvement with autopsy film
Date: 29 Aug 1995 02:27:34 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison
The circumstances of the autopsy film heavily preclude the simple private
sector involvement that viewers have been led to believe, whether the
film is real or an intricate hoax.
First, forget whether it is real or a hoax. Either way, we are supposed
to believe that the cameraman not only walked off with film of an alien,
but nobody in Washington cared to retrieve it from him. Secondly, he
held on to it for 50 years. While possible, this scenario seems *highly*
unlikely. Strong evidence suggests the film was indeed taken in 1947, so
therefore I find it highly doubtful to consider that the cameraman both
walked off unchecked with the film and kept it under tight wraps for 50
years.
The alternative is intelligence involvement. The purpose would be to
plant it in the private sector and eventually have it be proven real OR a
hoax. Either way, my explicit PREDICTION is that the media will start
covering this heavily on television and in newspapers. The cameraman
will be found, too. For a short period of time, the film will appear
highly authentic. Even now, we have the best FX experts in Hollywood
expressing skepticism that it was a fake body, and we have a top
pathologist expressing skepticism that the body was even human. When the
cameraman is located, the people of the world will believe it to be real,
but the only missing element is official acknowledgment and admission by
the US government.
Here is where the purpose is to be revealed. If the purpose was to
produce a huge hoax to discredit the subject of UFOs, a private sector
plant will jump in and reveal a fatal flaw that had been overlooked and
that somehow requires specialized expertise that only he could have
produced (e.g. the instrument tray wasn't made until 1954 and he worked
for the company that made them or something). This tremendously
undermines public interest in the subject.
If the purpose is to launch an elaborate, choreographed admission
program, then the intelligence community has worked a beautiful
situation. When the point is reached where the world believes it be real
but the intelligence community hasn't admitted anything, they can assess
the state of human reaction. If reactions are negative and chaotic, then
they expose it as a hoax using the strategy above, and the public doesn't
think much about aliens for another twenty years. If people are reacting
orderly and are positive about obtaining more information, they can put
the official stamp of approval and admission on it. Either way, the
intelligence community would have an admission in progress that is fully
retractable, contingent upon the world's reaction to it. This is
completely optimal for them -- a retractable admission!
The only true criticisms are that it was a two-hour autopsy, but who
knows how many months they spent with the organs? The autopsy could have
extended for years. The other criticism is that it's too human looking,
but again, who knows if the humanoid figure is a unique optimization of
the evolution of intelligence or one of infinite chaotic solutions?
Either way, evidence strongly suggests that this couldn't have been
produced in a garage six months ago, and experts are skeptical that this
thing is even human. Even the pathologist who suggested a bizarre
combination of several independent deformities seemed rather dubious
about a strange multiple manifestation of physical disorders, including
radiation experimentation that required biohazard protection.
So, my predictions are for heavy media coverage and a location of the
cameraman, who will likely provide further corroboration to build the
public's interest further. That's when the pivotal point is reached: a
purposeful hoax, a retracted admission, or an overt admission from the
producers, the intelligence community.
Brian Zeiler
From: mpaulsen@aol.com (MPaulsen)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Definite INTELLIGENCE involvement with autopsy film
Date: 30 Aug 1995 00:52:56 -0400
In article <41ttum$14fk@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Brian Zeiler
writes:
>Either way, we are supposed
>to believe that the cameraman not only walked off with film of an alien,
>but nobody in Washington cared to retrieve it from him. Secondly, he
>held on to it for 50 years.
Odd, that. Am I to believe that our gov't was that bureaucratic even back
then? Perhaps, but not likely given the sensitivity of the event. Then he
holds onto it for nearly 50 years, and, unless FOX pulled a
digital-enhancement wonder on us, wouldn't one expect to see atleast SOME
scratches in the film which typify older films? Now I realize that the
majority of scratches would develop from playback and I take it he never
showed them once until he approached Santilli, but still.... It's the
ageing issue of the film that bothers me.
>The alternative is intelligence involvement.
Possible. Was there any verification to the gov't admission that the film
was "an experiment gone wrong" or was this more B.S. churned up around
this event. One can never get the facts straight in the Internet
wasteland.
> When the point is reached where the world believes it be real
>but the intelligence community hasn't admitted anything, they can assess
>the state of human reaction.
>...
>Either way, the
>intelligence community would have an admission in progress that is fully
>retractable, contingent upon the world's reaction to it.
This scenario would certainly be a godsend of a litmus test for the IC in
guaging the public's reaction. I would have hoped that in all of 50 years,
the government would be in a better position to assess our reaction to the
truth about ETI, but perhaps not. It's no secret that while many people
fear and mistrust the government, the government fears and mistrusts us.
Good, new-fascist democracy in action!
>The only true criticisms are that it was a two-hour autopsy, but who
>knows how many months they spent with the organs? The autopsy could have
>extended for years.
Exactly. The argument given that they only spent two hours on what should
be a groundbreaking opportunity was empty and short-sighted. OF COURSE
they're going to follow up on every piece of tissue and organ that they
extract. And how could even the cameraman know that X-rays weren't
performed at some later date, unless he saw them reduce the carcass to
shreds? And I DO believe that there were other bodies available, if this
is to jibe with The Roswell Incident. The four fingers vs. six still nags
me though.
> The other criticism is that it's too human looking,
>but again, who knows if the humanoid figure is a unique optimization of
>the evolution of intelligence or one of infinite chaotic solutions?
I agree. Albiet interesting, these standard astrobiological
arguments--excuse me--PRESUMPTIONS are but a joke. Arguing that the
necessity of astrobiological diversity (given the roll of the dice that
this planet has been dealt, unpredictable alien evolutions, etc.)
necessitates that this alien be less human is utter nonsense. Astrobiology
is pseudoscience posing as hard science. Pure conjecture if ever there was
a scientific discipline to bestow this honor.
However, I do find it curious, that the alien is far more human-looking
than that of the classic "grays"--making it much more acceptable and less
"alien." Kind of convenient, and this makes me suspicious. But it could
very well be another species. How the hell would we know?
The genetic deformities/abnormalities arguments suggested by the
pathologists were useful but essentially hopeless when you stack the deck
with polydactyly, the enlarged-head, low set ears, AND the black eye
coverings which the pathologists did not comment on! Maybe they did and
FOX just censored us for sensationalistic purposes, but if this corpse is
real, what are the explanations for the eye-coverings? I wouldn't even
expect this from the most aberrant genetic mutation. A radiation
experiment is out of the question. And I have to agree with Dean that
those suits are in no condition to shield radiation, the outfits would be
only suitable for standard biohazard protection against viruses, bacteria
and the like, as I'm sure they were intended.
It will be interesting to see if Stan Winston takes up the challenge and
lets his team attempt to duplicate the realism of the body, dripping blood
and all. While I am still leaning towards a hoax, I am a bit disturbed by
how it stumped even the experts from pathology to special effects.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if they had some other observations to
make that FOX didn't exactly let us see, if you know what I mean!
Later,
Mike
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
From: mbrutt@postoffice.ptd.net (mbrutt)
Subject: Autopsy on FOX is ...
Organization: Reality Software
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 01:11:27 GMT
I just stepped away from the TV after watching the FOX presentation of
the alien autopsy. My first thought was, "THEY DIDN'T EVEN SHOW A LOT OF
THE FILM!!" They kept showing the same thing, over, and over, ... talk
about disappointing. What I DID get to see was completely ASTONISHING
... I mean, it really looked real. When the fellows who created Alien
and the dinosaurs in Jurasic Park (sp?) came on, and said that this was
either real or VERY high tech, I was amazed. The look on their faces as
they watched the video was so neat--they were in SHOCK. The guy said, if
we made this, I'd be proud. They were amazed out how realistic the blood
was and the removal of the organs. The PHONE ON THE WALL was from that
era. The tray with the tools was from that era, the film, as everyone
knows is supposedly from '27, '47, or '67 making it possible from that
era ... etc. etc.
TO SUM IT UP: This baby is real or one HECK of a fake ...
Michael Rutt
mbrutt@postoffice.ptd.net
From: bhelfersta@aol.com (BHelfersta)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Autopsy on FOX is ...
Date: 28 Aug 1995 22:24:39 -0400
I just got finished watching the show myself. While I've heard that there
was a form of liquid in the body, it wasn't anything like 'blood'. It was
hard to tell color and what not on the film.
Personally, I have to say that was an organic creature of some sort. Did
it come from another planet, or was it a deformed human? Personally, I
think that if it was a deformed human, the organs would be the same as
ours. Even WITH exposure to radiation.
My opinion??? The world just got its first look at a REAL
extraterrestrial.
bhelfersta@aol.com
(The Mysterious Story Teller)
From: randomity@aol.com (Randomity)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Autopsy on FOX is ...
Date: 28 Aug 1995 23:46:44 -0400
Or perhaps a fellow terrestrial. The thing looked like an elf. I find a
secretive humanoid race that began it evolutionary path a little earlier
than we did more plausible than the mindboggling improbability of
interstellar travel.These things are adapted to this planet. Their craft
are ideal for covert planetary travel. They've always been one step ahead,
full of smoke and mirrors. Make no mistake. They are not interlopers. They
have been around for a long, long time. They are different from us but
then again not as different as, say, an octopus or a hippopotamus. Look at
the unending diversity of life teeming in every imaginable corner of our
own planet. Look at the vast and intricate tapestry of cultures in our own
species. I believe there is plenty of room for fantastic beings here on
earth without gazing hopelessly at the stars. Looking for answers that
even if they arrive will be ten twenty, a thousand years late.
Let's face it, the human race is a loose cannon. Any intelligent
species would do well to stay ouy of our way and develop undisturbed.
These creatures do not seem to crave attention. But I think they have a
legitimate stake in this planets future. It is time we humble ourselves
and point our noses downward. Listen to the voices from within this
planet. There are fabulous beings behind them. I think we saw one tonight.
From: Bill Schlosser
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: "The Film"
Date: 29 Aug 1995 01:03:56 GMT
Organization: BrightNet
As grainy as it was, it sure looked pretty damn real to me.
How could you fake something so well in 1947/48?? The best
special effects guys have trouble doing it today!!!
Naturally the sceptics will have their explanations- but it's
hard to beat film- remember the Rodney King video? It's just
hard to explain away video. We know that the film was
manufactured in 1947, and was developed not more than two years
later- so let's hear the skeptics whine now!
My other thought is maybe this is the start of the
indoctrination of the citizens of the world into the reality of
UFO's and ET's, maybe this cameraman is really a high placed
covert government guy who put this film out to help with the
indoctrination, who knows......
What do the rest of you think?
Bill Schlosser
flash@bright.net
From: wilkd@aol.com (WILKD)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: "The Film"
Date: 28 Aug 1995 22:59:15 -0400
The FOX film was definately digitized and artificial grain added, also
contrast was increased to the point that most shadow and highlight details
were lost. Santilli stated in documents I got off WWW that he received 22
rolls of dupe film and 1 roll of original camera footage. Even if these
were only 250' hand-held camera rolls, there is over 1.75 hours of footage
we haven't seen (paid for). He mentioned footage taken in field tents at
the crash site. Even though the Hollywood types were impressed, I don't
think the stuff we were shown on TV was all that amazing. I got the
impression that they were viewing footage that was closer to the original
than the digitized, messed-with stuff we saw. The stills on WWW are much
better looking than the TV images.
Just some quick thoughts... I'm waiting for the un-edited, complete
footage to appear...(save your $$$)
WILKD
From: phillip550@aol.com (Phillip550)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: "The Film"
Date: 28 Aug 1995 23:55:35 -0400
Was not able to watch the entire show while on location filming a
commercial, but it was very interesting to watch on the television in the
motorhome. However, there is something that has been bothering me about
this film scenario. Yes, the film could have been shot in '47 and with
dupe film there is no way to verify the original by chemical or grain
structure analysis. If the camera was a Filmo it was more than likely a
100' load, which was standard back then. But here is the big question. Why
was it not shot in color? Color cinematography was a well established
process by 1947, although early Ektachrome and color neg films were
notoriously prone to color shifts and archiving was still a questionable
matter. There is tons of war footage from the Pacific that is archived and
seen regularly today on television documentaries.
For archival purposes, B&W is the very best medium. Much more stable, can
be used in lower light situations (without overheating a chilled autopsy
room), and could have been processed almost immediately at the base lab
whereas color processing lines were not so common. So maybe that was the
reason, I don't know. At any rate, it would be VERY unusual in 1947 not to
have shot some color stock, at the very least for reference.
Also, if this mystery cameraman was called on short notice in Washington
and flown in ASAP, he most certainly had access to the best film stock and
equipment the military had at its disposal. If people at high levels knew
what they were going to be filming, I would seriously wonder why they did
not shoot any color, or then again maybe they did, and it along with many
other items are hidden from our perusal.
All the same though, if you were going to be archiving the greatest event
in mankinds history, I think that the powers involved would have made
every effort to document this event in great detail, and that would mean
color. I can't imagine that someone would have to explain verbally or in
writing to a higher authority, the color of the skin or organs of the
first alien visitors. So if that is so, then there may well have been
more than one camerman in the room. And from what I saw of the action, you
don't see anyone else jockeying for position with another camera, and for
that matter no still photographer floating in the background.
It was an interesting film.
From: miked@tigger.cc.uic.edu (Michael G. Dieter)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: "The Film"
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 08:14:33
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
In article <41tp1s$16h@brutus.bright.net> Bill Schlosser writes:
>From: Bill Schlosser
>Subject: "The Film"
>Date: 29 Aug 1995 01:03:56 GMT
>My other thought is maybe this is the start of the
>indoctrination of the citizens of the world into the reality of
>UFO's and ET's, maybe this cameraman is really a high placed
>covert government guy who put this film out to help with the
>indoctrination, who knows......
>What do the rest of you think?
>Bill Schlosser
>flash@bright.net
I tend to agree with this theory. Perhaps the film is a very good fake
produced by someone as a test balloon to gauge public reaction and begin a
desensitization process whose culmination would be public acknowlegement and
revelation of the history of relations between terrestials and
extraterrestials. As long as the film is a fake, there remains an element of
deniability; if the reaction is favorable, then bona fide documentation could
be released.
--
Michael G. Dieter
University of Illinois at Chicago
E-Mail: miked@tigger.cc.uic.edu
From: esbenl@ifi.uio.no (Esben Lund)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Roswell film: why the video censor?
Date: 29 Aug 1995 18:54:51 +0200
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
In article , bensonc@unixg.ubc.ca (Benson Chin) writes:
> I saw the Fox Roswell Alien "extravaganza" and couldn't understand why they
> kept that annoying video censor over the being's crotch area. Jonothan
> Frakes said the being had no visible genitalia, so why was the censor even
> necessary?
> Please email me or repost with opinions/answers.
>
> Benson. (thinking that this "E.T." didn't need an 'R' rating)
I saw the autopsy here on Norwegian TV2, there was no sensoring,
and it looked like a girl. Atleast "down there" ;-)
Esben
From: rembert@euronet.nl (Rembert)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Roswell documentary
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 22:37:14 GMT
Organization: Euronet Internet
On Sun, 27 Aug 1995 21:21:27 GMT eelco@eastg.iaf.nl (Eelco Zwart) wrote:
>...
> But I am sure that the American Government is hiding
>something for us and I'm still hoping that this film and documentary helps
>to reveal the Roswell-mystery. I think we have the right to know, what
>happened there fifty years ago!
I also saw the Channel 4 documentary on the Dutch tv. I was
disappointed the commentary was in Dutch. I preferred the original
commentary. When will it be broadcasted on other channels?
I doubt the Santilli movies are real. I somehow get the feeling the US
Government is hiding things and are doing a great job here. First it was
an UFO, then it was a weather balloon. They kept it that way for about
50 years. Now it's time for another cover-up: release those Santilli
movies (originating from a army officer who's called Jack Barnett or
something). I won't be surprised if these Santilli tapes have been made
by the US army. They are playing a dangerous game that way, but quite
possibly it will be prooven the movie is a fake within a year or so,
just to create more fuzz about it. More and more people won't be
interested in Roswell anymore, it will decay to a Monster of Loch Ness.
Meanwhile, the army did their cover-up job quite well.
Greetz,
----------------------------------------------------------
Rembert Oldenboom - Keeper of the Iqbal Masih Mailing list
finger rembert@euronet.nl to get PGP-key
From: denmar@ix.netcom.com (DENMAR )
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Roswell documentary
Date: 29 Aug 1995 05:09:26 GMT
>I doubt the Santilli movies are real. I somehow get the feeling the US
>Government is hiding things and are doing a great job here. First it was
>an UFO, then it was a weather balloon. They kept it that way for about
>50 years. Now it's time for another cover-up: release those Santilli
>movies (originating from a army officer who's called Jack Barnett or
>something). I won't be surprised if these Santilli tapes have been made
>by the US army. They are playing a dangerous game that way, but quite
>possibly it will be prooven the movie is a fake within a year or so,
>just to create more fuzz about it. More and more people won't be
>interested in Roswell anymore, it will decay to a Monster of Loch Ness.
>Meanwhile, the army did their cover-up job quite well.
I'm not sure about this theory. Releasing film footage- whether real
or fake- only increases public interest in the subject. Coming out
later on and publicly denouncing said footage as fake only causes the
public to scream "coverup!" all the louder. By keeping quiet on the
subject, you might agitate a small minority of people, but the public
at large remains ignorant and ambivalent. If the government did create
this film, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now if they had
been smart and thrown it in the dumpster, instead of leaking it to the
public.
From: mattn@hevanet.com (Matt N)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Roswell documentary
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:40:54
Organization: Hevanet Communications
In article Director@TATribe.com (Richard Griffith II) writes:
>From: Director@TATribe.com (Richard Griffith II)
>Subject: Re: Roswell documentary
>Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 11:25:08 -0800
>Hey George,
> Did it say where/how to get the video? What about price and content.
>The Fox program did not show any crash sight scenes. I would like to see
>the whole uncut film. Thanks -Rich
For The People is selling an uncut version of the film, along with a 400 page
book for $20.00 I believe the shipping is $4.95. Whereas Santili is selling
the video for 69 bucks. Their number is:1-800-888-9999
From: emery@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Emery Dora)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Roswell documentary
Date: 29 Aug 1995 22:17:39 GMT
Organization: SFSU MolBiol
In article , eelco@eastg.iaf.nl (Eelco Zwart) wrote:
> Tonight (Sunday) the Brittish Channel 4 documentary on the Roswell-incident
> was showed on the Dutch television. I have to say that the documentary was
> made very well. The facts and evidences of the withnesses were all the same
> as I know them from the books on the subject. But I am not convinced that
> the Santilli-film is real. Although the images looked very real, the film was
> not taken very profesionnally. A bit strange IMHO. Further a part of the
> wreckage was showed. In the unknown language that was printed on it, it was
> not difficult to recognize the word 'VIDEO'..?!
Part of the wreckage was *not* shown - that part of the documentary was a
dramatization.
From: alk@news.cfa.org (Tony Kimball)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Roswell documentary
Date: 29 Aug 1995 20:34:09 -0500
Kin Baumgardner (cba@infomatch.com) wrote:
: >I won't be surprised if these Santilli tapes have been made
: >by the US army.
: >Meanwhile, the army did their cover-up job quite well.
: Why would the Army bother creating a cover up film when there are already too many
: pranksters out there are gladly doing the job for them.
Probably not the Army, but certainly some agency of the US feral
government. Not a "cover-up", an "un-cover-up". A continuing
part of a phased introduction of alien contact to the populace,
habituation of *hoi polloi* to images and accounts of alien contact.
From: photon
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: TV Report: Alien Autopsy
Date: 29 Aug 1995 01:28:13 GMT
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.
Just saw the Roswell film on Fox in NYC. I had to post this because the
overwhelming evidence so far is that it is real.
Consider simply these facts, presented as unedited sound bites in the
program:
--Stan Winston, the man behind the creatures in Jurassic Park and many
other films, the absolute king of Hollywood effects, is shown in an
entire sequence with his crew trying to figure out how they would fake
this footage as they watch it. He and others indicate that they do not
know how such subtleties were faked, even given the best and most
expensive Hollywood techniques. If so, he says, it would be very, very
expensive, and the person doing it would be a master--by implication,
better than Stan Winston!
--Two master forensic surgeons view the footage, and indicate the
techniques used are consistent with autopsies of that time. One, a well
known forensic surgeon with tens of thousands of autopsies to his
credit, says the organs shown clearly indicate the subject is not human.
--A representative of Kodak and a film curator say that every indication
is that the film--and they are said to have examined the actual footage,
which, as shown in the shot, to be yellowed and aged--came from the late
40s or early 50s.
So, consider simply those testimonies by world-class experts: this is no
human; if it is a hoax, Stan Winston and crew don't know how it was
done, and it was very expensive; the evidence is that the stock is from
the 40's.
And the fact that the autopsy subject closely resembles most accounts of
what aliens look like, although not exactly--many accounts say 4
fingers--also indicates to me that it is real. There are ALWAYS
substantial differences in most eyewitness reports from the actual, and,
if fake, why not do it exactly? If a genetic abnormality--with
abnormalities so great a master forensic surgeon would say it wasn't
human!--if a genetically abnormal human, why the radiation suits?
I am led to believe that this film is real. This is the proof.
From: Thomas.Randall@bbs.mhv.net (Thomas Randall)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: TV Report: Alien Autopsy
Date: 29 Aug 1995 11:10:34 GMT
Organization: MHVNet, the Mid Hudson Valley's Internet connection
photon (bylev@aol.com) wrote:
: Just saw the Roswell film on Fox in NYC. I had to post this because the
: overwhelming evidence so far is that it is real.
: Consider simply these facts, presented as unedited sound bites in the
: program:
: --Stan Winston, the man behind the creatures in Jurassic Park and many
: other films, the absolute king of Hollywood effects, is shown in an
: entire sequence with his crew trying to figure out how they would fake
: this footage as they watch it. He and others indicate that they do not
: know how such subtleties were faked, even given the best and most
: expensive Hollywood techniques. If so, he says, it would be very, very
: expensive, and the person doing it would be a master--by implication,
: better than Stan Winston!
: --Two master forensic surgeons view the footage, and indicate the
: techniques used are consistent with autopsies of that time. One, a well
: known forensic surgeon with tens of thousands of autopsies to his
: credit, says the organs shown clearly indicate the subject is not human.
: --A representative of Kodak and a film curator say that every indication
: is that the film--and they are said to have examined the actual footage,
: which, as shown in the shot, to be yellowed and aged--came from the late
: 40s or early 50s.
: So, consider simply those testimonies by world-class experts: this is no
: human; if it is a hoax, Stan Winston and crew don't know how it was
: done, and it was very expensive; the evidence is that the stock is from
: the 40's.
: And the fact that the autopsy subject closely resembles most accounts of
: what aliens look like, although not exactly--many accounts say 4
: fingers--also indicates to me that it is real. There are ALWAYS
: substantial differences in most eyewitness reports from the actual, and,
: if fake, why not do it exactly? If a genetic abnormality--with
: abnormalities so great a master forensic surgeon would say it wasn't
: human!--if a genetically abnormal human, why the radiation suits?
: I am led to believe that this film is real. This is the proof.
I'm not buying it. They have an "ALIEN" from another world and THIS
is the kind of camera work they use? They are SAWING an alien head open
and the cameraman CAN'T get a good shot of it? No still camera to
document this event? No x-rays taken of the body? No blood tests? First
they say the event took place in a hospital, then a TENT on the crash
site. Now it's back in a hospital. First 4 fingers now 6.
Ever see the "Dawn of the dead" movies? This hoax CAN be done and I'll
bet without too much trouble or money. Our government gets to autopsy an
ALIEN and THIS is the crap film of it? BULLSHIT! Believe the people in
the "special", go ahead. Someone made a TON of money off of this
nonsense, all in the name of ratings.
Tom
From: rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: TV Report: Alien Autopsy
Date: 29 Aug 95 13:49:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Manitoba
In culligan@bldgumsu.lan1.umanitoba.ca (Joyce Culligan) writes:
>Tonight in Wpg. Mb. Canada at 8:00 p.m. on the Fox network there is a Report
>entitled Alien Autopsy being aired. It is information about the Roswell
>incident in 1947.
>As an lurker and a fairly new reader how seriously can one take this show.
>Has anyone else seen it and does it have any merit?
Joyce: Hope you didn't miss it! It was at *7:00 pm* on FOX and CKND. I
must say I was more impressed than I thought I'd be, but something
about the film still doesn't *feel* right.
--
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
From: stlnchld@ix.netcom.com (Stolen Child )
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: TV Report: Alien Autopsy
Date: 29 Aug 1995 14:17:59 GMT
In rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
writes:
pre
>
>In
culligan@bldgumsu.lan1.umanitoba.ca (Joyce Culligan) writes:
>>Tonight in Wpg. Mb. Canada at 8:00 p.m. on the Fox network there is a
Report
>>entitled Alien Autopsy being aired. It is information about the
Roswell
>>incident in 1947.
>>As an lurker and a fairly new reader how seriously can one take this
show.
>>Has anyone else seen it and does it have any merit?
>
>Joyce: Hope you didn't miss it! It was at *7:00 pm* on FOX and CKND. I
>must say I was more impressed than I thought I'd be, but something
>about the film still doesn't *feel* right.
What doesn't feel right is the film quality itself. Film deteriorates
cracks and generally falls apart and unless the cameraman had it in
an airless, sterile light free environment, it wouldn't have lasted
that long and looked that well. Films of any value are kept in
temperature controlled underground (usually) vaults with strict
humidity and light control, especially the quality of the film circa
1947.
From: nporcino@sol.uvic.ca (Nick Porcino)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: TV Report: Alien Autopsy
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:33:17 -0700
Organization: Planet IX
In article <809694508.13577@igcnet.demon.co.uk>, "Gary Morris - Software
Engineer( Support )" wrote:
>> Stan Winston had however long the film ran (fifteen minutes?) to figure
>>out how to do a hoax. The perpetrator would have had all the time in the
>>world (months, at least).
>
>I'll bet good cash if Stan Wilson had said that it was a fake all the debunkers
>would be running around shouting "I told you !". Rather disturbing that the
>world's best didn't say that.
two points on the Stan Winston segment:
1. It's been reported in this group previously that Stan Winston has
already seen the film; his comments have also been posted here.
2. Hello! Earth calling the gullible. It was a TV show!
After footage is prepared for the show, it is ***edited***!
Hello! This means that they cut any piece that they don't like.
in general:
Where was the still photographer?
Where was the scale for weighing organs?
Why did the suits inflate/deflate with breath?
How come the cameraman couldn't keep focus? People did know how to make
good films back then IMHO, after all.
I thought it would make a great Nine Inch Nails video.
nick
From: Ralph Zauner
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: TV Report: Alien Autopsy
Date: 30 Aug 1995 04:39:14 GMT
Organization: trib.com Casper Wyoming
nporcino@sol.uvic.ca (Nick Porcino) wrote:
>In article <809694508.13577@igcnet.demon.co.uk>, "Gary Morris - Software
>Engineer( Support )" wrote:
>
>>> Stan Winston had however long the film ran (fifteen minutes?) to figure
>>>out how to do a hoax. The perpetrator would have had all the time in the
>>>world (months, at least).
>>
>>I'll bet good cash if Stan Wilson had said that it was a fake all the debunkers
>>would be running around shouting "I told you !". Rather disturbing that the
>>world's best didn't say that.
>
>two points on the Stan Winston segment:
>
>How come the cameraman couldn't keep focus? People did know how to make
>good films back then IMHO, after all.
The most probable reason for the focus is called "depth of field", The
cameras of the 40's used fixed focus lenses that were usally on a turret
so that they could be switched as needed. There was no through the lens
focusing. I would expect that the camera came equipped with 3 lenses, a
closeup lense of say 2' to 6', a medium range lense of 4' to 30' or so
and a long range (telephoto) for far off filming.
An example of the "depth of feild " concept can be done with any ordinary
set of binoculars, simply focus on something at say 12 feet then without
touching the focus try to look at something 4 feet away.
ralpz@trib.com
From: ctoeppen@best.com (ctoeppen)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: TV Report: Alien Autopsy
Date: 30 Aug 1995 06:00:00 GMT
Organization: BEST Internet (415) 964-2378
In article <41v7in$sc@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
stlnchld@ix.netcom.com (Stolen Child ) writes:
> What doesn't feel right is the film quality itself. Film deteriorates
> cracks and generally falls apart and unless the cameraman had it in
> an airless, sterile light free environment, it wouldn't have lasted
> that long and looked that well. Films of any value are kept in
> temperature controlled underground (usually) vaults with strict
> humidity and light control, especially the quality of the film circa
> 1947.
I don't know where you get the idea that film from 1947 wouldn't last
until now. We have family 16mm B&W films from the late 1930's that
have been kept in less than ideal conditions (i.e. garages, basements,
etc.) and they are still very viewable. The only fogging or other
light blasted portions on our films are probably those from the time
the film was shot.
From: Chris Wood
Subject: Re: TV Report: Alien Autopsy
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:45:39 GMT
cb566@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Peter Hamilton) wrote:
> First off: What the doctors were doing there is MUCH more important than
>what the cameraman was doing. Rule number one: Don't get in the doctors way!
That would be fine if the doctors appeared to be doing a thorough job.
All they actually seem to be doing is hacking all the internal organs out
and dumping them in trays - no measuring or weighing.
Chris
--
Chris Wood Work Tel: (+44) 171 637 9111
"Gravitity is a myth....
Comms Division Work Mail: WoodC@Logica.com
Logica UK Home Mail: Chris@Sprocket.demon.co.uk
From: t.chung@ix.netcom.com (Tony Chung )
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: "ALIEN AUTOPSY: FACT FOR FICTION" - My two cents...
Date: 30 Aug 1995 08:34:03 GMT
After watching the documentary ("Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction")
on the FOX network here in the U.S., and reading the various views of
it in this newsgroup, I would like to contribute my own thoughts and
explanations on the many points raised:
-- "Did an alien craft really crashed at Roswell?"
Aside from those who were at the actual crash sight in 1947 and
the government, assuming there's a cover-up, no one can say for a fact
that an alien craft really did crashed there. Fact is, everything that
was told by those interviewed were all hear-say. None of them had
actually seen the crash sight in person, much less the aliens. This
was obvious when all they can respond, after watching the autopsy
footage, was that the supposed alien looks like the same beings that
were described to them by someone else.
-- "If it was not an alien craft, and if there were no aliens, what's
the deal with the military?"
The military claims that the object that crashed was a weather
balloon. However, doesn't it seem odd that the military was dispatched
to recover a weather balloon that crashed? Unless, that is, the
weather balloon carried some sensitive military equipment, used to spy
on the Russians, or maybe it was some top-secret, experimental aircraft
that crashed. Of course, there's always the UFO theory. Whatever the
case may be, the fact that the military showed up raises some doubt
that the object was a mere weather balloon…but it also doesn't mean it
was an alien craft.
-- "Maybe there really isn't a cover-up?"
The military and the government have denied a cover-up for
decades. They will deny everything when it comes to UFOs. Yet, when
they are asked to supply documents believed to be UFO related, it is
either considered TOP SECRET, critical to national security or, when
supplied, black-inked out. For something that does not exist, it sure
seem like the government are trying to hide something.
-- "How about the autopsy film? That ought to shut the skeptics off!"
As much as UFO enthusiasts would love to believe that they have a
solid piece of evidence towards the existence of alien beings, the
truth is, the film doesn't prove anything. My 3 main reasons is as
follows:
1. No one can say for certain that the being in the film is,
indeed, an alien.
2. No one can say for certain that the entire film, itself, is
real.
3. It seems odd for the military to stage such an elaborate
cover-up and, yet, didn't care to recover all the rolls of
films shot of the supposed autopsy.
-- "So the film's fake! It's all a hoax!"
Many skeptics remains…skeptical about the film and rightfully so.
However, no skeptic, yet, has been able to prove the film to be a fake
just as the non-skeptics has yet to prove the film to be genuine.
-- "Of course it's a fake! The alien don't even look real!"
The general sentiment among skeptics is that the supposed alien
looked like a dummy, that it doesn't look or act the way it "should".
However, unless someone have an alien for a friend, we really have no
knowledge of how an alien should look or act. Many people equate the
dead "alien" to a dead "human" to reach the conclusion that the way the
body looked or acted was not right. Granted that equating the alien
body to a human body is the best that we can do, the fact remains that
we do not have any working knowledge of alien physiology. What may
seem fake to us may actually be how a dead alien body really is (the
stiff, rubberish, dummy-like quality)!
-- The film could easily be shot today with an old roll of film and
modern special-effects.
Various factors need to be considered before the idea that the
film is shot today and not in 1947 can be taken seriously. Is the roll
of film used a new roll or one that can be dated back to 1947? If the
film is dated _after_ 1947, then it is safe to say that the whole
thing's a hoax, as least as Roswell is concerned. However, according
to the "expert" in the FOX documentary, the film could be dated at or
before 1947. The next question, then, would be whether an unused roll
of film can retain usable quality after 48+ years of storage. If it
can be established that a 48+ years old roll of film can still be used
today, then it's possible…just possible…that the film is shot today.
However, if a film can not retain usability after 48+ years of storage,
then we have to ask ourselves, in terms of special-effects, can this be
faked? That's where the Hollywood special-effects team are come to
play. Having watched the film, the group that was featured in the FOX
documentary was genuinely impressed and would be "proud" if they can do
something like that. If even award-winning special-effects people were
impressed by the footage, it suggests that it would be difficult to
fake…not impossible…just difficult.
** My own take on the whole Alien Autopsy thing **
I must admit, I wasn't very impressed by the documentary, at least
the way it was put together. I felt they showed too little footage of
the autopsy and spent too much time on the failed search for the
cameraman. I'd feel differently if they had actually found the
cameraman. Since they didn't, however, it was pointless to even
mention the search. I thought the interviews and the history of the
Roswell crash were all done nicely, and the experts all seem to be
quite genuine. I did find it puzzling as to why they brought in the
cinematographer. The sole purpose of a cinematographer is to shoot
pretty pictures, not to record an event. His comments were also
pointless in that he criticized the way the frame was set up, the way
it goes out of focus from time to time and how the cameraman was not
able to get a good shot. I think the cinematographer failed to realize
that the cameraman was not there to win an academy award. He was there
to record the event on film and that's it. It may not be pretty, but
it served its purpose. I think he also has to realize that the camera
used a military standard issue which doesn't hold focus like a
Hollywood camera.
Question was also raised as to the positioning of the clock and
the phone, as if strategically placed to be filmed and thus prove the
time frame. I, personally, didn't find anything wrong with the way the
objects were stationed. Assume the cameraman's back is towards the
door (as I don't recall seeing any doors in the film), it is not
uncommon for clocks and phones to be placed away from the door and thus
in the view of the camera. Except for a few instances where the clock
was in full view, which one can say that the cameraman was simply
documenting the time of the event, the film mainly focused on the body
and the action taking place.
As for the quality of the film, itself, I must agree with those
who felt that it was exceptionally clear. The picture quality, though
grainy, does not look like something shot in the 40's nor does it look
like it came from a film 48+ years old kept away in a box. I've
watched films from the time period, taken with better cameras and the
films were better kept. The quality of those doesn't come close to the
autopsy footage.
Watching the film, I felt it was more of a
dissection than an autopsy. They didn't seem interested to find out
the cause of death, rather they were busy removing organs and probing
the busy like what biology students do to frogs.
One curious thing that I noticed about the documentary was that
they seem to have forgotten all those people who claimed to have been
abducted by aliens. If anyone knows what an alien look like, it would
be them. If Stantilli and other UFO buffs really wanted to find out
whether the thing being autopsied is an alien or not, why didn't they
ask those who've supposedly seen them? Did they simply not thought of
it or were they afraid of getting an answer they didn't wanted to hear?
I guess in the end, unless the government admits that there's a
cover-up or alien beings publicly reveal themselves to the world, we'll
never know whether we are or are not alone. Until then, the skeptics
will find anything to continue not believing while the enthusiasts keep
on looking for proof of alien existence.
--
Tony C. Chung | "Funny how the world
t.chung@ix.netcom.com | still functions when
Computer Information Systems Major, | I'm away..." 8)
California State University Polytechnic, Pomona | - Me, Myself 'n I
From: BRCLARKE@FWHDEPT.env.gov.bc.ca (Clarke, Bruce {SO})
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Alien Autopsy: my opinion
Date: 29 Aug 1995 17:29:10 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
RE: the Alien Autopsy film:
I watched it with two friends. We were kind of annoyed that they only showed
pieces of the whole film. I would rather they just shut up and showed the
whole film without any interruption. We came to the conclusion that the
film looks very realistic, but it is probably a fake for one big reason.
The whole premise is that this is a being from another world. It is the
first time scientists have ever seen one of these aliens. Don't you think
they'd have more than just one hand-held B&W movie camera? Surely they could
have had one or two guys taking color 35 MM photos. Also there didn't seem
to be any sort of voice recorder in the room. Wouldn't it make sense to have
a voice recording taping the the comments the surgeons were making while
hacking away?
Maybe they were doing a quick preliminary autopsy before sending the remains
away for further study, but I have to say I think it is just a very detailed
hoax.
Bruce
From: magix@ix.netcom.com (Two Dolphins)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy on Fox-vs-human autopsy
Date: 29 Aug 1995 19:57:47 GMT
In iscariot@eskimo.com () writes:
>
>Here is 1 vote for real.
>
>It is obvious that the movie can't be fake. Kodak verified the age of
>the film. The objects in the room are authentic. The surgeons know hat
>they are doing (no actors) and the body is better then the Aliens pecial
>effects team can make!
>
>[1] I think the government released it.
> a. TO "test the waters" for the reactions to Alien existence. If eople
> go Apeshit, they will cover up all future evidence.
>
> b. Maybe they know something. Maybe the Aliens want to reveal
> themselves.
> This could be the governments way to prepare us.
>
>
>I know this will be all over the news tommorrow with people's
>reactions.
>
>iscariot
>
I have witnessed various human dissections in my time, only two that
were autopsies to verify cause of death. I'm not a doctor, but have
done a little clinical physiology work in the past, so here goes my
meaningless opinions and question.
1. the abdomen of the supposed
specime was greatly enlarged, yet when the body was opened there was no
object within the cavity to indicate an enlarged belly ( but I've seen
bellies of humans swell up with gases under certain circumstances)
2. why did the cameramen go to the extent of making this alien look sdo
humanoid and the "insides" looked so profoundly non-human.
3. what the
heck was that round shaped organ located in the center of the upper
abdominal area? why did the pathologist say it appeared to be a liver.
it sure didn't look like a liver to me.
4. the effect of removing the
eyes film, or whatever it was supposed to be looked very authectic
because when you remove an object from a mucous membrane such as an
eye, the same visiual effect is seen--take a look
5. the position of
the head, eyes , toes and mouth are all the positions that I have seen
dead bodies in, typical mouth is always open in a corpse, eyes partly
open, but not wide open or visibly rolled back in head, feet are always
"splayed"( facing out)
6. I didn't see any blood pooling on the bottom
surfaces of the corpse, usually when a human dies laying down, the
bloos seeps through the tissues to the underside(bottom) and causes
something that looks like bruises. In other words, if you died standing
on your head, your head would turn discolored, ect.....
7. when viewing
human autopsies I have always had a feeling that I wasn't looking at
something real. It's different when viewing a dead body because the
body always takes on a waxy, unreal, stiff look
8. in the human
dissections I have seen the internal organs, of course are visible, so
is the rib cage, which is split open and pulled back with the skin,
where was it? how does a humanoid figure supprt its structure with no
rib-cage( have to look at the tape again)
9. why would the hoaxers go to
lenghts to make the figure appear humanoid on the outside, but not the
in? Is it cause they wanted us to ask this questions?Why did the
cameral man only shoot from the "aliens" left side, but not the right?
Could it be because the special efects crew was on the right? Why
didn't he go around the back of the head( usuallly observers stnad here
at least part of the time)
Conclusion : there is no way for me to prove that this is a fake, or
real
grrrrrrrr
From: cornelius@agrippa.demon.co.uk (Mike Collins)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy on Fox-vs-human autopsy
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:08:56 GMT
magix@ix.netcom.com (Two Dolphins) wrote:
>I have witnessed various human dissections in my time, only two that
>were autopsies to verify cause of death. I'm not a doctor, but have
>done a little clinical physiology work in the past, so here goes my
>meaningless opinions and question. 1. the abdomen of the supposed
>specime was greatly enlarged, yet when the body was opened there was no
>object within the cavity to indicate an enlarged belly ( but I've seen
>bellies of humans swell up with gases under certain circumstances)
>2. why did the cameramen go to the extent of making this alien look sdo
>humanoid and the "insides" looked so profoundly non-human. 3. what the
>heck was that round shaped organ located in the center of the upper
>abdominal area? why did the pathologist say it appeared to be a liver.
>it sure didn't look like a liver to me.
From reading the descriptions here, it appears that the UK
channel 4 programme that I saw differed somewhat from that shown on
Fox. The British (forensic) pathologist reckoned that although the
large organ removed from the upper abdomen was the right size for a
liver, it was the wrong shape and in the wrong place.
He also said that he was unable to discern any intestines, or any
recognisable thoracic organs. The lack of intestines did strike me as
odd considering the bloatedness of the belly.
With such humanoid external appearance, I find the lack of internal
similarity the biggest strain on the film's credibility, (the external
strongly suggesting common evolutionary ancestry, the internal
suggesting otherwise).
Still, it's not conclusive either way.
I would very much have liked to see the inside of the mouth or the
stomach contents (if it had one) to get some idea of its diet. I
wonder if these were included in the full autopsy.
From: smk17@cornell.edu (Steve Kern)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Alright, I'll add my two cents about the Fox autopsy
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:26:46 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
1. The film looked too good. Too clear for 1947, but then again I am no
expert on old films and how they appear.
2. A couple of times the head of the alien was kind of bumped into, the
way it shook seemed fake. It seemed to stiff, to rubber dollish, for lack
of a better word. but then again they were "stiffs".
3. I was impressed by the way the special effects guys were impressed.
They seemed to genuinely awestruck by the whole thing.
4. Was the clock and the phone filmed to be in frame on purpose, did
anyone else feel that they were purposely in frame alot?
5. People say how can a body from another planet evolve to look like us?
Well how about the universe has one form of evolution (head, body,two
arms,two legs) again for lack of a better term.
6. One person responded on this group by saying that he wasn't impressed
with the alien. This is absurd, since we would NO idea how they appeared,
or what their skin was like. You got to remember, they had been dead for a
while and were probably bloated.
My thoughts seem to bring me to the conclusion that what many people saw
last night was very big, in every aspect. I think it was real, a real
alien from a UFO crash at Roswell.
Didn't UFOs start popping up around the time we entered the nuclear age?
Courious little buggers.
Steve
From: kebarnes@cc.memphis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Alright, I'll add my two cents about the Fox autopsy
Date: 30 Aug 95 00:15:45 -0500
Organization: The University of Memphis
smk17@cornell.edu (Steve Kern) writes:
> 1. The film looked too good. Too clear for 1947, but then again I am no
> expert on old films and how they appear.
Depends on the storage conditions and the type of film, no doubt.
Black and white, I would think, should preserve better than color,
since the dyes involved in color process are typically less stable
than silver grains would be.
> 2. A couple of times the head of the alien was kind of bumped into, the
> way it shook seemed fake. It seemed to stiff, to rubber dollish, for lack
> of a better word, but then again they were "stiffs".
Difficult to say how a "real dead alien's" head should react
to being bumped, or whether the rigor which we associate with
dead animals on Earth should even occur in an extraterrestrial.
Seems plausible that it would, though. There also wasn't much
bone structure shown in the Fox-TV special, but they edited the
film quite extensively. The "creature" apparently would require
some sort of endoskeleton, for the purposes of support against
gravity, and for the musclulature to work against. You can't
really get away without having a skeleton unless you're evolved
in a low-gravity or neutral buoyancy environment (like a sea
creature).
> 3. I was impressed by the way the special effects guys were impressed.
> They seemed to genuinely awestruck by the whole thing.
They're certainly the guys to watch, since fooling people with
film is their business. Stan Winston's remark that "my hat
is off to whoever is responsible for faking this, or to that
poor dead alien on the table" (or words to that effect) was
pretty impressive to me, too. I wonder if there is any
footage of the "alien" being placed onto the table, and
whether there is editing or other signs which woFrom: Chuck
that one "alien" body is being substituted for another in
later shots (i.e. an alien cast "in the round" is substituted
for an alien which is connected to fake blood reservoirs
hidden in the table.) Are there continuity problems in the footage?
Does the "blood" stay in one place from one shot to the next?
Evidently, the effects guys would look for stuff like that,
and they're no doubt familiar with what's been done by others
in their field, even if they're not "gore experts".
> 4. Was the clock and the phone filmed to be in frame on purpose, did
> anyone else feel that they were purposely in frame alot?
Given that the footage is "real," the clock would no doubt
be there to provide a time-stamp for the filming. The phone
may be there to serve as an intercom between the "autopsy"
room and an adjoining "observation" room. Whether the phone
or the clock are anachronisms to the date or location of
the filming, it's tough to say, since nobody knows (or at
least I've not heard anyone say) where the filming is
supposed to have taken place. Given that the clock is a
civilian 12-hour model, rather than a 24-military clock,
this may indicate that the footage wasn't made at a
military installation.
> 5. People say how can a body from another planet evolve to look like us?
> Well how about the universe has one form of evolution (head, body,two
> arms,two legs) again for lack of a better term.
Actually, there is a term for such a thing, and it's
called "convergent evolution". The idea is that the
function of an organ or body part dictates to some
degree its form, which is how the bat and the bird
and the insect can all have evolved wings, but from
independent lineages. Similarly, there are several
routes which organisms on the earth have taken in
the course of evolution to arrive at an eye, but
the structures, whether an insect's compound eye,
or the eye of a mammal, or that of an octopus, are
all recognizable as eyes. The interesting evolutionary
question about this "alien" is whether bipedalism is
so closely linked to sentience. As you're no doubt
aware, humans are unique as organisms on Earth as
regards their walking about on what would be their
hind legs_all_the_time._ Some have suggested that
this adaptation permits tool-using and nonverbal
communication (via hand signals) which might have
been important precursors to a verbal and technological
development. The human brain, it is sometimes alleged,
"overdeveloped" due to the necessity for processing
language, and the tremendous energy burden which it
represents to the organism would otherwise be difficult
to justify. Self-awareness, to the degree that humans
have it, is perhaps a side benefit. ;) It might also
be noted that the "alien" appears to be a predatory
species, since its eyes are on the front of its head,
providing an opportunity for binocular vision, rather
than at the sides of the head, where their increased
peripheral vision would serve to watch for predation.
Is there a correlation between predation and intelligence?
It would seem so, as it requires comparatively little
intelligence to sneak up on a plant... ;)
[I'd say there are some fairly good reasons for the
"convergent evolution" of toes and fingers, too,
since the toe simply repeats the lever motif of the
ankle, and is derived from the same general plan as
the fingers of the hand, which serve to increase
dexterity of the hand. A interesting question: Did
the "alien" have finger and toenails? There should
be no compelling reason to have these vestiges of
claws on an alien. Did the alien "female" have
nipples? The convergent evolution of lactation as
a means of feeding the young would seem also unlikely.
The similarity of genitalia wouldn't seem that
surprising, however (except for the requirement for
external testes), given that the alien's biochemistry
is similar to that of earthly organisms, as there
needs to be a structure associated with transferring
the genetic material (if the "aliens" have live birth).]
> 6. One person responded on this group by saying that he wasn't impressed
> with the alien. This is absurd, since we would NO idea how they appeared,
> or what their skin was like. You got to remember, they had been dead for a
> while and were probably bloated.
Plus, it's been pointed out that dead humans sometimes
appear "fake," and that this is a psychological effect.
> My thoughts seem to bring me to the conclusion that what many people saw
> last night was very big, in every aspect. I think it was real, a real
> alien from a UFO crash at Roswell.
>
> Didn't UFOs start popping up around the time we entered the nuclear age?
> Curious little buggers.
>
> Steve
Not only that, but our other electromagnetic emissions got
started not too long before. Seen from that standpoint,
the Earth got "bright" and "radio-active" rather suddenly.
Wouldn't you be curious what all that racket was about? :)
--Standard Disclaimer--
**x*dna Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. ________Vote_________ NRA
*(==) * The University Of Memphis |=*===*===*===*===*=| JPFO
* \' * Memphis, TN | Gramm/Alexander96!| GOP
*(=)*** kebarnes@cc.memphis.edu |___________________| U-U
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: daw@idirect.com (Non-Linear Enterprises)
Subject: Roswell film followup
Organization: Internet Direct, Canada
Date: 29 Aug 95 16:45:18 GMT
After watching the Fox television program on the alien autopsy last
night, I have to say that I believe it to be genuine, however I'm pissed
off that the program creators didn't show the whole autopsy film from
beginning to end, only certain clips. A fellow UFO believer has told me
that the British government will allegedly make a UFO-related
announcement that will shock the world, in approximately two and a half
months. I have no idea why they are waiting until then. Did anyone else
hear the same rumour?
From: PeteNelson@eor.com (H. F. Pete Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Roswell film followup
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 04:07:59 GMT
daw@idirect.com (Non-Linear Enterprises) wrote:
>After watching the Fox television program on the alien autopsy last
>night, I have to say that I believe it to be genuine, however I'm pissed
>off that the program creators didn't show the whole autopsy film from
>beginning to end, only certain clips. A fellow UFO believer has told me
>that the British government will allegedly make a UFO-related
>announcement that will shock the world, in approximately two and a half
>months. I have no idea why they are waiting until then. Did anyone else
>hear the same rumour?
There is a rumor "out there" that October will be an earth-shaking
month for UFO/aliens-related announcement(s). I have NO IDEA whether
these rumors have any credence.
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: Chris Wood
Subject: Re: Roswell Film 'V I D E O' joke?
Sender: news@carmen.logica.co.uk (News Manager Account)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:15:24 GMT
benzibox@ix.netcom.com (Benedict D. Zilinskas ) wrote:
>
>You're missing a very important fact - the I-BEAM was a REPRODUCTION
>based on the memories from a witnesses childhood .
>
>The documentary made no claim that it was the actual object.
Erm, I seem to remember the *UK* documentary stating that along with the
autopsy footage there was also found some of various strange bits of
wreckage, which were shown in the documentary.
One segment showed the I-Beam and another showed some flat looking slabs
with slightly indented palm prints in them. Inside the palm prints were
small raised nodules which I took for some sort of pressure sensors, as
part of a control pannel. No explanation was offered, but I'm almost
certain that no reference was made to these being reconstructions. The
film was still in B+W, without sound and of the same sort of poor picture
quality as the autopsy stuff.
If I am mistaken, I'm sure someone will quickly correct me!
Perhaps something different was shown in your US production?
Chris
p.s. don't be fooled by my email address - I live and work in London, and
by some miracle of technology my .com address gets routed to the UK.
--
WoodC@Logica.com
All opinions expressed are my own, and not those of Logica.
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: Chris Wood
Subject: Re: Roswell Film 'V I D E O' joke?
Sender: news@carmen.logica.co.uk (News Manager Account)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 19:28:40 GMT
Anyone who saw the Channel 4 UK production about the film will no doubt be
aware of this one, but I don't know whether any of the other documentaries
around the world showed this bit....
A video was shown of one of the famous 'I-beams' from the wreckage, with
symbols on it.(Looked to be of the same vintage as the autopsy film)
The odd (or should I perhaps say funny) thing about this was that the symbols
on the beam bared an uncanny similarity to our alphabet, and quite
clearly read: V I D E O
There were a couple of other letters after these ( I think another O then an
E ) after which the beam looked as if it had been broken.
The E was kind of doubled with its reflection (as in a backwards E sharing
its vertical line with a forwards one).
Is this someones idea of a joke?
Made me laugh;-)
As for the autopsy footage? A very elaborate hoax, IMHO.
Decide for yourself.
Chris
--
WoodC@Logica.com
All opinions expressed are my own, and not those of Logica.
From: folks761@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Marsha Ann Folks)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: ROSWELL, N.Mex. - 1947
Date: 29 Aug 1995 08:58:35 GMT
Organization: University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
Just want to shed a bit of light on the Roswell, NM
incidents. My extended family, as well as my mother
and father happened to live in Roswell from 1946.
They moved there right after the end of World War II.
My sister was born in Roswell (1946).
I spent two months this past summer near Roswell
(didn't bother with the big UFO Convention there -
I knew it was going to get rained on!). Anyway,
I spent quite a bit of time talking to my relatives
who were in their 20's and 30's when the UFO
crashed on the ranch outside Roswell.
Their opinions to a person were:
a) The crash happened
b) It was alien
c) The witnesses were *hushed up* by
govt intervention
None of this is surprising for the following reasons:
Trinity Site (the 1st Atomic Nuclear test)
is near Alamogordo, NM, which as the bird
flies ain't that far from Roswell.
If, as has been speculated, there were alien
beings watching the planet earth, they would
most certainly have been interested in the
first nuclear explosion.
Before Walker Air Force Base was phased out and closed
in the late 1960's, it was an USAF-SAC base. It was
very high security and a lot of top secret stuff was
going on all over New Mexico (what do you expect
having Oppenheimer 250 miles to the north in Los
Alamos, NM???)
Anyway, my family, who are business people, and are
well-educated, respected for their nonsensical views
of the frivolous, everyone KNEW that there had been
a UFO Crash and a nice coverup by the US Government.
For the late 1940's and the 1950's, that may have
been appropriate. But for today's world, it
does seem ludicrous.
Just a bit of first-hand information from a person
who lived in Artesia, New Mexico (35 miles south
of Roswell).
Marsha Folks
<*chuckle*> Will spread rumors about *your* prowess for postage.
_____________________________________________________________________
INTERNET: | Marsha Ann Folks
Site of the World's | Buxom Vixen Vamp of the Internet
Largest Ongoing Block Party! |Ben Franklin's Great^7 Granddaughter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: clark63@matrix.newpaltz.edu (david clark)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Autopsy opinion
Date: 29 Aug 1995 05:10:46 GMT
Organization: SUNY New Paltz
I, like everyone else on the planet it seems, saw the alleged autopsy
footage tonite. I saw it on the FOX network's program. What struck me as
strange was the overall quality of the film. It didn't seem as though it
was old. It looked like it was purposly manipulated to look as though it
was from the '40's, something like "Unsolved Mysteries" would do to
re-create an event from the past. Did anyone else get this impression?
Maybe I just haven't seen enough old film footage to know the difference.
Any opinions?
Also, I was disappointed that the FOX progam showed absolutely none of the
alleged footage of the crash site. Wasn't there supposed to be footage of
this also...And a tent scene? Did anybody see this footage on any other
programs? I'd like to get an impression on the credibility of that
particular footage.
Overall, I think the autopsy footage was pretty much convincing. It DID
look like flesh and blood, not something from Hollywood. The special
effects guy said that if it was a hoax, he would hire the guy who did it.
If the body isn't real, why would someone go to such trouble to fake it?
I'm left wondering if it isn't some grand scheme of disinformation by the
government. Until it's proven a hoax, though, I'm going to consider it
credible.
From: tedjac@aol.com (TedJac)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Autopsy opinion
Date: 29 Aug 1995 17:19:47 -0400
The look of the film may be due to a process called "pushing." This
causes graininess in exchange for more film speed. This means that it
takes less light to get an image on the film. It is relatively easy to
make B&W 16mm film look like that. The only question is, why? If the
room was noy lit brightly enough, or maybe it has somethinmg to do with
the "problem" the cameraman had processing the film. That is, after all,
the explanation as to how he got the film in the first place. It didn't
get sent to DC with the other stuff. Anyway, the "look" of the film
really does nothing to aid either side of this debate, IMHO.
Ted
From: komodo@netcom.com (Tom Johnson)
Subject: 1947 undeveloped film?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 04:15:22 GMT
One question that has never been asked by anyone is, if you found several
old rolls of undeveloped film from 1947 to create a hoax in the '90s what
are the chances that the film might still be good?
It would be preferrable to hear from photographic professionals only
rather than mere opinions from unknowledgeable people.
After seeing the Autopsy special, I found it interesting that the biggest
Roswell buff, Stanton Friedman, said he saw nothing in the autpsy film to
link it to Roswell. One would almost expect him to be waving a banner and
saying this proves what I've been saying all along. His statement alone
casts doubt on the authenticity of the film.
From: yiorgos@ix.netcom.com (*.* )
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: 1947 undeveloped film?
Date: 29 Aug 1995 05:40:24 GMT
What I do not understand is this. This cameraman was the only one in
the room. Therefore no other footage would have been shot of the
beginning of the Autopsy.How can he say that the government just simply
forgot this film, or they did not care to pick it up. Unless of course
they were overloaded with these films from other autopsies.
If this cameraman exists how foolish for him to relinquish his identity
to the government by stealing and then selling government peoperty.
I'm sure the people that are responsible for this cover up know who the
cameraman was. Since there was only one.
There is a possibility that if this film is authentic, that the
cameraman is not the person who released it. Instead it could be a
soldier that just simply lifted it from the Archives. Or perhaps
someone who was entrusted to have access to this material. And having
done this he is worried about his identity being discovered and the
government taking action against him.
Did this creature have teeth ?
Was it a carnivore ?
It did not have mammary glands does that mean it was a reptile or an
amphibian, bird or something?
I wonder what was in the swollen belly ?
Impressive biceps and thighs.
Size 9 shoe.
OJ's gloves would not fit
Perhaps it was nocturnal (Big Eyes) explains why most abductions happen
at night.
Did notice to see if the clock was running backwards ?
Just a few questions.
Yiorgos
From: tedjac@aol.com (TedJac)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: 1947 undeveloped film?
Date: 29 Aug 1995 17:27:30 -0400
Film goes bad relatively fast. Even today's stocks don't keep longer than
a few months... a year at best. Older stocks would likely be even less
stable. Emulsions break down and no longer respond properly when exposed
to light. I've tested stock only a few months old, that was stored
properly, and found it unusable. I would be amazed if film kept fifty
years and then produced those images when processed... I would say it is
much more likely that you could walk on water, then get any usable image
from fifty year old film.
Ted Jacobs
Director of Photography
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: tcapizzi@world.std.com (tom capizzi)
Subject: Re: 1947 undeveloped film?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 19:08:46 GMT
Tom Johnson (komodo@netcom.com) wrote:
: One question that has never been asked by anyone is, if you found several
: old rolls of undeveloped film from 1947 to create a hoax in the '90s what
: are the chances that the film might still be good?
: It would be preferrable to hear from photographic professionals only
: rather than mere opinions from unknowledgeable people.
: After seeing the Autopsy special, I found it interesting that the biggest
: Roswell buff, Stanton Friedman, said he saw nothing in the autpsy film to
: link it to Roswell. One would almost expect him to be waving a banner and
: saying this proves what I've been saying all along. His statement alone
: casts doubt on the authenticity of the film.
Your first question has been asked and answered several times here.
Simply put, film goes sour if it is kept in storage too long due to exposure
to background radiation, among other things.
As to Friedman's opinion, that's another story. A possible scenario
is this: the film footage is real, but it is incorrectly identified as coming
from Roswell. The footage was taken in Ft. Worth, so the crash site could
have been anywhere. In any case, I respect the opinion of Dr. Wecht and the
expressions of awe in the faces of the special effects crew were especially
convincing. They push me into the believer column, although I reserve the
right to also believe it is a very professional hoax.
Tom Capizzi
From: Psychonaut
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Autopsy Footage
Date: 29 Aug 1995 02:03:05 GMT
Organization: Internet Online Services
After watching the footage on FOX television tonight, I must say they
did a very good job of reporting the story. I have never been a fan of
Sightings because it seems that sometimes they go to any length to
convince their audience and I wished that the story was handled by
someone else. I must say though they did a pretty good job of handeling
all the required sources to build a convincing case. Bringing in the
necessary people like pathologists and special effects people and even
kodak proved for a very convincing story. I will not try to speak on how
this must be real for this reason or that because I have given up
wasting my time on people who do not believe. A skeptic will find every
possible way to prove his disbelief. I don't care if you believe or not,
just get out of the way so the rest of us can have a look and do some
real research.
From: jtraigis@usit.net (John Traigis)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Autopsy Footage
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 05:06:53 GMT
Organization: United States Internet, Inc.
Psychonaut wrote:
>After watching the footage on FOX television tonight, I must say they
>did a very good job of reporting the story. {snip}....
I didn't care much for the show because they didn't have hardly any
negative opinion at all. Everyone was saying how fantastic the
footage was, but only one person(the film maker) didn't believe it.
As I remember(from a discussion here a few months ago) the film
usually used by the military was 16mm not 8mm(which was what that film
they showed the Kodak people analysing).
They also didn't mention how much was paid for the film(it was more
than $40,000 wasn't it?) which would have been plenty of incentive for
me to fake something like that(i.e. they special effect people saying
it would have cost thousands and thousands of dollars to do said
effects...which of course, is what they would have charged someone
else, but if you're doing the stuff yourself for your own purposes you
only have to expend for materials...since your time is your own).
From: philinch@magna.com.au (Phil Inch)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Conclusions after watching Roswell documentary
Date: 29 Aug 1995 00:50:24 GMT
Organization: Game Developers Magazine
After watching the Roswell documentary, I've come to the conclusion that
the event certainly happened - there are too many witnesses whose
stories match too closely for it to be mass hysteria.
But I'm equally convinced that the film is _fake_. Notice that none of the
witnesses seemed to feel that the film matched what they remember.
Now you could argue that after 50 years their memories will have been
distorted, but the clincher as far as I'm concerned was the guy who didn't
remember the "aliens" having six fingers - no matter how distorted, I'm sure
anyone would remember that.
Also re the issue of Kodak testing the film, the two suggestions made in
this conference were to provide Kodak with a sample, in which case that
could be real but the rest of the film was fake, or let Kodak destructively
test the whole film.
The best idea as far as I'm concerned is let Kodak have the whole film and
let them make the choice of which frames they cut out and test. This way,
if parts are real and parts are fake, there's a real chance of discovering
that. If this film is faked, Santilli et al would probably not agree to this idea.
What do the rest of you think, having seen the "evidence" ?
From: hugger@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Phil Hugger)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Conclusions after watching Roswell documentary
Date: 29 Aug 1995 18:18:29 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
In article <41to8g$oh7@kettle.magna.com.au>,
Phil Inch wrote:
>After watching the Roswell documentary, I've come to the conclusion that
>the event certainly happened - there are too many witnesses whose
>stories match too closely for it to be mass hysteria.
I agree. The evidence that SOMETHING crashed and was recovered by the
military is irrefutable. The offical 'mogul balloon' cover story is
ridiculous.
>But I'm equally convinced that the film is _fake_. Notice that none of the
>witnesses seemed to feel that the film matched what they remember.
NONE of the 'witnesses' interviewed in the film ever claimed to have
seen a body in connection with their 1947 Roswell experience. They only
REPEATED what they RECALL THEY WERE TOLD by others who had claimed to
have seen bodies.
>Now you could argue that after 50 years their memories will have been
>distorted,
Absolutely, especially memories of a 50 year old conversation. I can't
recall -verbatim- anything I said yesterday, but only have vague impressions
of conversations I had. I would expect the -DETAILS- of a 50 year old
story to be quite distorted, however the overall 'impression' of the story
wouldn't change too drasticly. It would be easy to remember discussing
an alien body, but more difficult to recall verbatim details as they
were related verbally 50 years ago, IMHO.
>but the clincher as far as I'm concerned was the guy who didn't
>remember the "aliens" having six fingers - no matter how distorted, I'm sure
>anyone would remember that.
Again, he was only repeating what he recalled he was told long ago. As
Roswell was being researched, it seemed that everyone jumped on the
"four-finger" bandwagon, based MOSTLY on the testimony of the funeral-home
guy...(Glenn Dennis?) Anyway, he -never- saw bodies either, but only
repeated what he recalled he was told by his military nurse friend.
(Who cannot be found.) Then he produces a sketch of the alien head and
hand, which he claims the nurse made for him on a coffee-shop check.
Now, is it possible that HE drew those pictures to strengthen his own
impression of the alien that was described to him? Sure! Is it also
possible that if someone said "the alien didn't have five fingers, like
we do" that you might interpret that to mean four?
My question is: who else besides the Roswell funeral-home guy (again,
I think his name is Glenn Dennis - not sure) has described the alien
bodies recovered at Roswell as having four fingers? Did they offer
this description INDEPENDANTLY and BEFORE Dennis' testimony became the
'official' description? Has ANYONE EVER been interviewed who claims
to have seen the bodies FIRSTHAND? I really hate the "my friend who
was there told me..." crap. We need to find the cameraman.
>Also re the issue of Kodak testing the film, the two suggestions made in
>this conference were to provide Kodak with a sample, in which case that
>could be real but the rest of the film was fake, or let Kodak destructively
>test the whole film.
I think -destructively- testing the -whole- film would be a dumb thing
to do. Sure, we could positively establish the age and exposure date
of the film, but we'd NEVER know if the images on it were real or not.
>The best idea as far as I'm concerned is let Kodak have the whole film and
>let them make the choice of which frames they cut out and test. This way,
>if parts are real and parts are fake, there's a real chance of discovering
>that. If this film is faked, Santilli et al would probably not agree to this idea.
I'm having a difficult time imagining how some of the film could be real
and other parts faked. That, IMHO would be IMMENSELY more difficult (in
seamlessly matching the real and faked film) than hoaxing the whole thing!
It's either ALL real or it's not.
>What do the rest of you think, having seen the "evidence" ?
I don't think the body was fake. Even the special-effects hollywood guys
said it would cost them thousands of dollars and be extremely difficult
to create a fake body that would appear as it did in the film as it was
cut open. To paraphrase what was said, the head FX guy said "If we did
this film, I'd be VERY proud of it."
So, if the body is real, the only question is: Is it human, or not?
~Phil
From: Craig Rich
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: ***JUST SEEN C4 "Incident at Roswell"***
Date: 28 Aug 1995 21:41:32 GMT
Organization: UnipalmPIPEX server
Having just seen the Channel 4 documentary "Incident at Roswell", I was
just interested to hear any one else's views or comments on "THE"
footage.
I think the footage could be regarded as real, although the whole show
seemed designed to confuse more than clear up any issues.
The residents' responses and commentary seemed genuine, but some of the
US officials (ie the guy who was meant to be working covertly and was
there at all the key points) seemed to be planted (possible
disinformation ??).
It is getting more and more difficlut to separate the wheat from the
chaff (to coin a phrase) when it comes to information - is this whole
area being engineered that way ? What appears to be genuine to most
people soon becomes debunked by some "official who was there at the time"
Any comments ?
Cheers,
Craig
From: nsimar@aol.com (NSimar)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: ***JUST SEEN C4 "Incident at Roswell"***
Date: 28 Aug 1995 21:24:37 -0400
Hi, just saw the US version ("Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction") and thought
that on the whole it was pretty even-handed. Stan Winston, the Special
Effects wizard and his crew puzzled over how the hoaxer got the blood on
tissues to look so real if it were a hoax. A Kodak representative waxed
enthusiastic about the probability that the film was not hoaxed.
Stanton Friedman was all sour grapes, I thought.
Was disappointed that they didn't show any debris footage and that they
computer-camouflaged the alien's crotch (geez, guys, is it the prime time
dilemma?).
I was not disappointed overall, but I will say this: if it weren't for the
surrounding facts and the positive opinion of Stan Winston, I would be
hard pressed to put the idea of a hoax to bed.
Now, I have to wonder, wait, and keep my ears open.
Nathan
From: jlustrup@telepost.no (jlustrup)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: ***JUST SEEN C4 "Incident at Roswell"***
Date: 29 Aug 1995 06:40:35 GMT
In article <41tq8l$ceh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, nsimar@aol.com (NSimar) says:
>
>Hi, just saw the US version ("Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction") and thought
>that on the whole it was pretty even-handed. Stan Winston, the Special
>Effects wizard and his crew puzzled over how the hoaxer got the blood on
>tissues to look so real if it were a hoax. A Kodak representative waxed
>enthusiastic about the probability that the film was not hoaxed.
>
>Stanton Friedman was all sour grapes, I thought.
>
>Was disappointed that they didn't show any debris footage and that they
>computer-camouflaged the alien's crotch (geez, guys, is it the prime time
>dilemma?).
>
>I was not disappointed overall, but I will say this: if it weren't for the
>surrounding facts and the positive opinion of Stan Winston, I would be
>hard pressed to put the idea of a hoax to bed.
>
>Now, I have to wonder, wait, and keep my ears open.
>
>Nathan
Too bad you don`t live in Norway. No camouflaging at all in our version,
as Norway is known for it`s leberatited view on sexuality.
Too bad they did`t send the whole autopsy film.
I agree on the diatvantage of no showing the true debris.
The drawings of the crached craft were interesting.
jan lustrup ****LA3EQ****
Bryne, Norway
From: Paul Hyland <75464.1476@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: ***JUST SEEN C4 "Incident at Roswell"***
Date: 29 Aug 1995 11:17:59 GMT
Anyone notice the drawings of the "craft" bore a remarkable
resemblance to Stealth technology. I agree there were more
questions than answers but isn't that the true nature of US
Government disinformation which the programme was riddled with
from start to finish. Tell 'em something happened, then deny it,
then muddy the waters and then pour scorn on the whole thing. I
too was reasonably happy with the locals who seemed genuinely
convinced about what they saw.. On the other hand, there's a lot
of money to made from Roswell becoming the pilgramage point for
UFOologists. The final comment of the narrator suggesting that a
high level Pentagon source wwould offer an explanation of the
bodies involved was redolent of vaudeville - always leave them
wanting more. The film itself was very interesting but the
glyph's on the metal bar worry me.....They did seem to read
"Video TV". As with all UFO cases, the fact that there is no
incontrovertable proof is a pain in the ass.
The beat goes on!!!!!
Hyland
From: James McGowan
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Roswell Programme UK
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 21:11:59 GMT
Organization: Planet Thaarg
Well, that was certainly something.
It was well balanced, to the extent that it refused to draw any
conclusions at all. What seems clear is that there was a coverup
at the time, for whatever reason, it's not clear.
The film looks like a hoax - in fact, it strikes me as something
taken by a CCD video camera, not a film camera - the flares and
contrast spikes look phoney - like something you put on later
by fiddling the saturation knob on a video mastering system.
The fuzziness looks as if it is in horizontal lines, like the
tracking errors you get on video. Scoring on cinematographs
is usually vertical, AFAIK.
To my mind, the film is a separate issue. When Marcel Jnr
said that the hieroglyphs didn't look like that on the I-bars
he saw - my gut feeling was that it was a hoax.
James
From: gilgash@primenet.com (Gilgamesh)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Roswell Programme UK
Date: 29 Aug 95 10:45:35 GMT
Organization: Ovni Chapterhouse
In article <809650496snz@morbod.demon.co.uk>,
MegaFlump wrote:
>Yeah, seemed suspicious that nobody who saw the film thought it was what
>they saw, and the SFX man was a tad disbelieving. Film aside, it did seem
>however that there was indeed a coverup for something, which leads to the
>question, what.
Yes the film is suspicious. But a damn good haox if that is the case.
SpecialFX man I found somewhat convincing though.
I was hoping to see parts of the craft, guess we have to wait.
Others said that the parts of the craft were shown to be in the same room,
well whoever wrote that, well I don't know.
The tray of autpopsy tools was interesting. Everything around the body seems
to add up. Imho. But this did not seem like a tent that others have talked
about. And they eddited out the crotch shots. That was odd, but that's
America.
From: Paul Clark
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Roswell Programme UK
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 09:49:14 GMT
Organization: Systems Magic Ltd, Cambridge, UK
In article <41vgmf$fvi@lace.colorado.edu>
hugger@refuge.Colorado.EDU "Phil Hugger" writes:
> As I see it, there are only two questions to answer.
>
> Is "The Thing on the Table" an actual biological entity?
>
> If so, is it from Earth?
>
> My impression of the film is that the answer to the first question is yes.
My impression is that the answer to both questions is yes. It looked to me
like a legitimate autopsy of a human female with any one of a number of
genetic disorders. It might have been filmed in 1947 or 1967 or 1995 and
post-processed, but it isn't linked to Roswell at all.
--
Paul Clark
"Technology depends on Ecology, not vice-versa"
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 12:22:13 CDT
From: tfs@adc.com (Tony F Sgarlatti)
Subject: More Alien Autopsy on Fox
Sender: snet-l-approval@world.std.com
I just got off the phone with my local Fox TV station affiliate
and they informed me that they are showing "Alien Autopsy" with
*additional* footage on Monday, September 4th at 9:00 Eastern time.
Get those VCR's ready!
Tony
--
Just say know!
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 15:31:29 -0700
From: Northwest Student
Organization: Northwest Missouri State University
To: rjoshua@sprintmail.com
Subject: Alien Autopsy: Not Human, Not Alien...Something in between...
I am convinced that the body shown in the now-public and
controversial images is nonhuman. Still, its human
features (cited by skeptics as proof that the body is
terrestrial) suggest an origin far more esoteric than the
ubiquitous "it came from another planet."
The most casual assessment of genetic science and
evolutionary theory makes a convincing case for the
improbability of humans developing on isolated planets;
there are too many variables.
Could the alleged alien body be a fabrication...a
biological construct reflecting the late 1940s view of what
an alien "should" look like?
The autopsy footage reveals a true enigma. If it were a
hoax, the budget required could have easily produced a more
_alien_ alien...instead we are confronted with something
strikingly familiar. Except for the unsettling eyes and
enlarged skull, the "alien" cadaver appears very much
human.
I argue that we are dealing with an
intelligently-manufactured pseudo-alien. Futhermore, the
Roswell "crash" was almost certainly staged on part of the
nonhuman intelligence as a kind of message--both immediate
and physical.
As Whitley Strieber poignantly portrays in "Majestic," we
blew that chance...we took the Roswell bodies at face value
instead of understanding the metaphor that they were.
The UFO phenomenon is far stranger than suspected in the
1940s. Public exposure to the autopsy footage (and the
reems of additional, currently classified information)
could be our first step in responding to the "others'"
attempt at contact. But first we need to shed our
preoccupation with flesh-and-blood, material aliens. Our
understanding of alien visitors is, at this stage, somewhat
two-dimensional. We view them through a lens clouded with
anthropomorphic conceit.
If you have additional information, please write me.
Mac Tonnies
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Wingate
X-Sender: steve@linex
To: snet-l@world.std.com
Subject: Re: Roswell Aliens (Nice Shades)
On Wed, 30 Aug 1995, Ron Bertino wrote:
> Well here is Oz they didn't do this scramble of the genital area -
> there was nothing to see anyway ! (literally)
>
> It was long thought/claimed that the Roswell alien craft was of the
> Greys (Zeta Reticulli). Granted that the autopsy alien doesn't look
> like a Grey at all (height, dimensions, etc). On the other hand, the
> alien did have features that appeared Grey (no body hair, internal
> organs, etc).
>
> Perhaps a possible theory could be then -since it has characteristics
> of both them and us- that this alien is one of the much talked about
> *hybrid* species that the Greys are experimenting with.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Ron.
I agree. The aliens in the autopsy appear to be hybrids as described in
the files from Branton (rebrids - souless hybrids, and hubrids - hybrids
possessing a human soul matrix). If one reads Whitley Strieber's book,
Majestic, the first part contains very detailed transcripts of two
autopsies performed on two different aliens from separate crashes, one a
traditional grey, the other a hybrid. I remember speculation in the
autopsy that the hybrid looked somewhat like it originated as a modified
human fetus. William Cooper claims in the file, A Covenant With Death,
that the autopsies in Streiber's book are real and that he saw the same
transcipts while on the Navy Briefing Team.
Steve
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||9999999999||||||||999999999|||||||9999999999||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||999||||||||||||||||||999||||||||||999||||999||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||999||||||||||||||||||999||||||||||9999999999||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||999||||||||||||||||||999||||||||||999||||999||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||99999999999|||||||999999999|||||||999||||999||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||| Citizens Intelligence Access BBS 415.927.2435 ||||||||||||
|| http://www.protree.com/pt-ufo/ufo-files/ufo-text-files/SteveWingate/ ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 09:20:24 +0100
To: rjoshua@sprintmail.com
From: p.mccready@qub.ac.uk (Pete McCready)
Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident on Channel 4
Hi Joshua,
>Thanks for the update from England, I posted your analysis on our Web
>in http://www.execpc.com/vjentpr/filmair.html as a way to give people
>some early feedback since Holland, Germany & the UK saw it before us.
Thanx. Did I spell "affadavit" correctly? I've a horrible feeling that
it's "affidavit"! And I actually have all of them too!
>I am working on a new page now and also just received a report supposedly
>written by the camera man I will be posting soon from Hans Kampen.
That I can't wait to see. Having read your thoughts on Roswell, I truly
agree that it is exceptionally sad that certain organizations have
conclusive proof, yet withhold it from us. The many FOIA responses that
I've encountered, albeit rather "blacked" out in places, do suggest that
more and more information is sloooooowly being revealed.
I saw a special on the U.S. military's involvement in psychic "remote
viewing" last Sunday, entitled "The Real X-Files". What a show --
Conclusive proof that psychic phenomena exists, and that the military were
paying big bucks for psychic espionage repeatedly, indicating that the
degree of success was outstanding.
Imagine my surprise when one of the remote viewers, formerly operating out
of Fort Meade, claimed that people who have had psychic experiences as well
as "UFO experiencers" were the best candidates for the military programme!
Another remote viewer's wife said that her husband grew tired of remote
viewing military installations and concentrated on "ETs" and their
activities instead. He later appeared stating that he had one of the
highest security clearances yet couldn't tell his military intelligence
employers that there were indeed intense ET operations, and that he was
monitoring them!
Wow!
You can judge the story for yourself when Jim Schnabel's book on remote
viewing is released later this year.
Again Joshua, many thanx for the service that you're providing...
BFN
Pete
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 14:35:50 +0100
To: rjoshua@sprintmail.com
From: p.mccready@qub.ac.uk (Pete McCready)
Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident on Channel 4
Hi Joshua,
There was only a sketch, which was on one one of the "new" Roswell
government reports revealed for the first time by the intelligence
operative responsible for the recovery. The funny thing is, it looked just
like the classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft sketch featured on the military
secrecy page by Paul McGinnis at
TRADER@cup.portal.com:
http://www.portal.com/~trader/sc.html
Possible sketch of what the
Alien Spacecraft shown on the film
may have looked like as shared by
Pete in this email. This picture is
of the Stealth Aircraft known as Senior
Citizen or Aurora, a hypersonic SR-71
aircraft, possibly built by Boeing, also
used for Advanced Transport and somehow
connected with Wright-Patterson AirForce
Base, reported where the crashed saucer at
Roswell was taken .... hmmmmmm?
>After I get up these additional views, I am going to take a break form
>this film stuff.
I know that feeling! There's just so much information on Roswell at the
moment. UFO Magazine has just featured ANOTHER exceptionally negative
article -- even before they had seen the footage. Their editor, Graham
Birdsall, was on satellite TV on Monday evening running down the footage
too, but again hadn't seen it... So many personalities, so little proper
evaluation...
Is Sightings still on air these days? I'm getting tired of repeats!
>We have plenty of information to keep people busy, over
>2000 people this week so far have come to see the images (I am expecting
>to hear from our providerer, hey we want more money, geez, what is a
>fellow to do).
I'll be in a similar situation soon with a "site" of my own. Hope my
service provider doesn't think that I'm too far gone, if you know what I
mean!
>If anything else interesting comes up in England, let us know.
Consider yourself the first to be told...
BFN
Pete
--
Pete McCready, School of Geosciences, The Queen's University of Belfast
Vodaphone: (0374) 839521 Tel: (01232) 245133 x3347 Fax: (01232) 321280
eMail: p.mccready@qub.ac.uk URL: http://wwwlan.gg.qub.ac.uk/wmaster.htm
PGP public key available
Fortean Times - Roswell Film Scoop
( The Journal of Strange Phenomena )
TWO HEADS MORE CONFUSING THAN ONE
On 22 August, FT received an envelope containing three black and white
prints showing someone touching up the head of an 'alien' with an
airbrush and make-up paints.
The head shows a remarkable similarity to the head in
Santilli's film, but a close examination must be made before we jump to
the conclusion that these pictures are proof that Santilli's film is a
fake. They may equally be the product of a brilliant amateur
model-maker who could not resist a challenge. We have no idea of the
origin of these pictures or why they were sent to us.
They will be show in FT83 - out on 13 Oct
