From: David.Bloomberg@f2112.n2430.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Bloomberg) Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Subject: Autopsy Quotes Date: 5 Dec 95 02:53:40 GMT Lines: 176 "Alien Autopsy" (Epilog) British expert Cliff Wallace of Creature Effects: "None of us were of the opinion that we were watching a real alien autopsy, or an autopsy on a mutated human which has also been suggested. We all agreed that what we were seeing was a very good fake body, a large proportion of which had been based on a lifecast. Although the nature of the film obscured many of the things we had hoped to see, we felt that the general posture and weighting of the corpse was incorrect for a body in a prone position and had more in common with a cast that had been taken in an upright position. We did notice evidence of a possible molding seam line down an arm in one segment of the film but were generally surprised that there was little other evidence of seaming which suggests a high degree of workmanship. We felt that the filming was done in such a way as to obscure details rather than highlight them and that many of the parts of the autopsy that would have been difficult to fake, for example the folding back of the chest flaps, were avoided, as was anything but the most cursory of limb movement. We were also pretty unconvinced by the lone removal sequence. In our opinion the insides of the creature did not bear much relation to the exterior where muscle and bone shapes can be easily discerned. We all agreed that the filming of the sequence would require either the use of two separate bodies, one with chest open, one with chest closed, or significant redressing of one mortal. Either way the processes involved are fairly complicated and require a high level of specialized knowledge." NOTE: We had already prepared the text of our own analysis before we were sent a copy of this statement. Mr. Wallace's opinions are strikingly similar to our own - clearly he is a very perceptive individual! Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Subject: Roswell Aliens-altered corpse theory From: lazzwaldo@aol.com (LazzWaldo) Date: 26 Aug 1995 04:41:34 -0400 Now who in their right mind would say that these are altered human corpses? That is patently ridiculous. I have seen the photos, and believe me, the "aliens" are dummies easily constructed by any competent makeup FX house. I run one myself, so I know whereof I speak. Get real. A guy who has the wherewithal to fake sets and film stock ALSO has the resourcefulness to obtain human corpses and then MODIFY them? What sort of "modifications" do you suggest have taken place? I'm saying that the SIMPLEST "modifications" to human corpses (derma-wax and makeup in mortuaries) are, as many people have seen, not very seamless or convincing. It's a hell of a lot easier to contract with a makeup FX house, sign 'em to secrecy (we sign non-disclosures all the time), and have 'em make a bitchin' alien corpse than it is to wangle a deceased human body. Foam latex, gelatine, urethane, and silicone are all materials that can appear fleshlike on film. It's pretty easy to obtain animal organs and place them in a false body cavity. Gore is some of the easiest stuff to fake. Ironically, there should be more! When you see the film, note the minimal damage to the "bodies". For the amount of damage their "craft" supposedly took, and the ease with which man-made autopsy tools render their "flesh" (indicating a pretty close similarity to human tissue; no invulnerability here) you would have seen a HELL of a lot more tissue damage. Look in a forensic pathology book at air crash victims. They turn to hamburger; shredded, pulverised, and barely recognizable from their original form. Hey, I'm a skeptic, too, but explanations along the lines of "modified human corpses" are absurd, way out of line, and laughable. You don't gain any credibility or further the cause for rational thinking with that kind of garbage. Occam's Razor cuts into synthetic, not real flesh, in this case. Rick Lazzarini President, The Character Shop Creators of some fine animatronic creatures and makeup FX for: Dumbo Drop, Bud Frogs, Outbreak, The Santa Clause, Miller Lite BassBall and Surfing Cow ads, The Sandlot, and many others.... Subject: Fox's "Alien Autopsy" - A Pathologist's View Date: 15 Sep 1995 01:12:20 GMT Organization: Pathanarchy I have just watched a tape of this very interesting show, but I must say that I have to be a little less charitable than the pathologist commentators on the show. I think it is a hoax, for some of the reasons brought up on the show and other reasons of my own. 1. I agree with the cinematographer whose suspicion was raised when the close-up shots were out of focus. Clearly the camera _could_ focus closely, as in the external shots and shots of the excised "organs" on the table, but where you really needed resolution to figure out the anatomy (the in situ shots), the film was conveniently fuzzy. 2. Any pathologist involved in such a case would be obsessed with documenting the findings. He would be systematically demonstrating findings every step of the way, such as showing how the joints worked, whether the eyelids closed, etc. He should be ordering the cameraman all over the place, but instead the cameraman was totally ignored, like he wasn't there at all. The pathologist acted more like an actor in front of a camera than someone who was cooperating in a photographic documentation session. 3. The prosector used scissors like a tailor, not like a pathologist or surgeon. He held the scissors with thumb and forefinger, whereas pathologists and surgeons put the thumb in one scissors hole and the middle or ring finger in the other. The forefinger is used to steady the scissors further up toward the blades. 4. The way the initial cuts in the skin were made a little too Hollywood-like, too gingerly, like operating on a living patient. Autopsy cuts are deeper and faster. 5. I would expect the skin of a species with a jointed endoskeleton to be elastic, so it could move with and glide over moving joints. When cuts were made in the "alien's" skin, the edges of the skin did not retract from the blade. 6. The most implausible thing of all is that the "alien" just had amorphous lumps of tissue in "her" body cavities. I cannot fathom that an alien who had external organs so much like ours could not have some sort of definitive structural organs internally. And again, the prosectors did not make any attempt to arrange the organs for demonstration to the camera. 7. This of course is outside my area of expertise, but the whole production just did not "look right" for a military documentary of the 1940's. I'm sure an expert in lighting, cinematography, etc. could be a bit more specific. Maybe they should have hired the guy who did Woody Allen's _Zelig_ to give the production a little more technical verisimilitude. 8. And the "period pieces," the wall phone and electric wall clock were just a little too glib, IMHO. 9. Oh, yeah. The body was not propped up on a body block (which goes under the back during the examination of the trunk and under the head for removal of the brain). This is a very basic piece of autopsy equipment, and all pathologists use it. So, I think it was a really fine effort, worthy even of a Cal Tech prank, but not quite good enough to be believable. Ed Uthman, MD Pathologist Houston/Richmond, TX, USA From Dave Harrington (email correspondence, used by permission): As a veteran news and feature film cameraman with 30 years experience, I'd sure like to know what type of film camera the fellow who shot that stuff claims to have used. If it was in 1947 and the film stock was 16mm, then the field is reduced to just a few (the Kodak magazine load or the Bell & Howell daylight-load roll film units being among them.) Using this info and examining the film carefully (calibrating f/stop from the apparant depth of field exhibited in the shots) could lead one to make a pretty good guess as to whether or not the type of lenses used, and the speed of the film stock, were even available for hand-held cameras in the 1940's. NOTE: A good question. Does anyone know of any research having been done on this topic? Also, the very nature of filming an autopsy would mean that the photographer filmed the entire proceedure in sequence, as it occurred. And this being a world-shattering event, I doubt that an editor would want to trim any valuable frames from the raw stock. This brings us to another technical point: Those spring wound hand-cameras almost always over exposed the first frame or two of every shot. This is due to the rotating shutter getting up to speed every time the shutter release button is depressed. The resulting "hot frames" at the head would be easily visible. If the photog claimed that he (or she) edited the coverage "in camera", and these hot frames are not evident, then you can be suspicious of the whole deal. NOTE: As it turns out, the "complete" film as seen at the end of the home video release _does not_ show "hot frames" at the beginning of takes. (But scrap footage that seems to indicate the ends of each roll _has_ been left in place.) It's _possible_ somebody carefully trimmed all the "hot frames" from the original footage... but why? Otherwise, the lack of "hot frames" would seem to suggest this film actually was shot on a more modern, motor-driven camera. -- David Bloomberg - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: David.Bloomberg@f2112.n2430.z1.FIDONET.ORG ====================================================================== Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/ Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services