A Special Effects Artist's Opinions on the Controversial "Alien Autopsy" CONTENTS of THIS PAGE: Introduction: Why I think the Alien Corpse is a Fake: Clues in the Cinematography: Problems with the set: Problems of Context and Procedure: Special Effects Issues: Make one Yourself: Material Costs of an Alien Dummy: Conclusion: PLEASE NOTE: Because of copyright issues I won't be able to show any film clips here. It is also assumed that the reader has already seen the film and has a copy for careful review. If you've spotted things I've missed, please send me E.mail, I'm very interested in what you have to say. Introduction: Because of numerous inquires regarding what has become known as the "Alien Autopsy" I am obligated to present my opinions on this controversial piece of film. Producers of the program warn viewers that the facts of the program may have alternate interpretations when it comes to UFO related events. I consider my experience and opinions a valid alternative source of information and am therefore pleased to make public some of my observations. I wish to apologize in advance to those who sincerely believe in the existence of Extra-terrestrial visitors. My intention is not to criticize you or your beliefs. Please don't take this personally-- this is not an attack on you. I am only presenting my observations and opinions on the film clip itself and its presentation in context of the program. The following is my rebuttal to "facts" brought forth in their presentation: Why I think the Alien Corpse is Fake: Generally I was very impressed with the Alien's dead body, which I believe was a life cast sculpted over with extra fingers and toes, abdomen and head features. Because the film itself had "special processing problems" we were never able to clearly see any skin textures. I like the details of the face, but it still looked sculpted to me. The extra toes and fingers were a very nice touch. Despite the great skill in craftsmanship the following items bothered me from the first viewing: Absence of body hair. Practically every living creature has some form of hair, fur or scales. This includes plants as well as animals, insects and mammals and human like forms from other planets. Hair is extremely useful for many reasons to living organisms, but hair on a special effect means extra time and money. This creature had no teeth, note how the mouth hangs open, there is no logic to odd shape of the mouth that in a human would be supported by gums and teeth. This thing is just plain hollow. Except for its eyes, this creature looked like it was made out of only one kind of material. Notice that joints are never worked or moved. The head and hand were wiggled a small amount but the movement didn't convey any bone structure, probably because the makers didn't use any kind of internal armature (framework). Gravity didn't work on this device as it would a dead body. This thing looked like a polyurethane-foam filled skin like we make all the time. It didn't flatten out on the bottom like a skin creature would. There were no deposits of fluid or damage to the bottom of the creature. Put your hand and arm on a table and completely relax, then have someone pick it up, notice how your arm lays and how your muscles flatten out, the creature in the film did none of these things. Doesn't it seem strange to you that this creature seems so smooth and pristine. Were are the wrinkles, scars, marks and patterns that form as a organism lives, moves and works. If it were pregnant, why doesn't it have stretch marks? It was purportedly in an accident, why didn't it swell or bloat? Where is evidence of bleeding? Don't we see it bleed later in the film, why didn't it bleed out of the large leg would or out of the mouth or an eye? Clues in the Cinematography: The cinematic style of this piece certainly gives it away. Experienced cameramen of that era certainly didn't move the camera in, out and around the object as you see here. This would be considered to be very unprofessional as it would throw the film in and out of focus. This sort of Avant-Garde style came out a few years a ago when commercial photographers decided they wanted to be clever. Compare these camera movements with those of photojournalists of the same era and you will see a big difference in styles. An amateur would use this style to try and create a sense of excitement or interest. In the beginning of the program we were shown a 400 foot reel of 16mm film. This is about 11 minutes of screen time. Why were we only shown a few seconds of film and teased with the same segment time after time? Watch the clock, you'll see one segment 4 times! This is because there is nothing to see or something to hide. Suppose the tape of the Rodney King beating had been shown in the same way, do you think people would have believed it? Notice how consistently and well the room was lit. Don't forget that this was an indoor shot. Compare this to newsreels of the same era. Interior shots almost always had "hot spots" due to the type of lighting available at that time. I doubt they cut the ceiling out of the operating room so that they could light it Hollywood style. To see how the set was lit just look at the reflections in the creature's eyes. The fake light leaks on the film are another dead give away. First of all you would expect a professional cameraman to know how to load and unload his camera. Second, doesn't it seem rather odd that the light leaks come in flashes and move horizontally across the frame? I doubt there was a thunderstorm in the room. It obvious the light leaks in the piece were used to hide flaws and for dramatic effect. If it's an attempt to make the film look old they did a poor job of it because it doesn't look like old film at all, I didn't see any scratches, dust, splices or film damage. I wouldn't be surprised if the original was shot in video and not 16mm film. The High contrast you see in this piece would hide the unforgiving texture of video. What about the film code? Sorry folks, you were given only part of the picture here. There's a lot of information given on a piece of film, I recommend you find an old piece of film and take a look at it. Compare what you see to the tiny fragment (which had one side torn off) that was given to the film experts at Eastman. FYI: the Bell and Howell Filmo 70 that was standard issue to war photographers prints a little triangular film-gate code on every frame that passes through the camera, this means they could have positively identified the type of camera used to take the original footage, why didn't they mention that here? Don't forget that a verified photo of something isn't verification that the something exists, it is merely verification of the photograph. Problems with the set: The setwork is my favorite part of the hoax because it is so flimsy both literally and figuratively. I believe this was filmed on a small set for several reasons: Notice how clean and smooth the walls are? What happened to plaster, base boards, wiring? Why is there a 1/2" gap on the floor? Why is the wall in the observation chamber so thin? Why isn't there any moldings around the window frame? Why is the set decoration so simple? I though this was supposed to be a state of the art laboratory. The program focuses our attention on the "authentic" clock. Big mistake! The clock is far from authentic, look at the power cord. It's much too thin. See if it goes to an outlet, do you see any plugs, wiring or switches on these walls? They also try to authenticate a phone which could easily be purchased at an antique shop. Follow the phone cord, notice how it dangles out into space? Why would a state of the art lab have a dead phone hanging on its wall? Another thing about the phone. Did you notice that there is no logic to its placement? It's not placed over a desk, shelf or platform, it just looks like it's been stuck on the wall. And speaking of the wall, where is the ever-present calendar? Could it be that a 1947 calendar was just not available in 1994? If a lab were in service for many years I would expect to see many things hung on the walls. Just one simple anatomical chart would have been nice. Some pencil scratchings by the phone would have been better. Did you notice the "Warning" sign? Do you know anyone who had seen a flat screen printed warning sign before OSHA was created? I saw a lot of stamped steel "Danger" and "Keep Out" signs when I was a kid, but they were on fence posts. Institutions didn't much worry about warning workers before OSHA. While we're on the subject of Warning Signs, what exactly is the danger? What could possibly be so dangerous as to warrant the posting of such a sign? Maybe the sign warns the actors not to bump into the walls or the set will fall down. And the tools? A little tray with about twelve obsolete tools. Is there really anything special about these? I would have been more impressed if they could have provided large medical cabinets filled with materials and tools from that time. This is hardly the well equipped laboratory needed for a project of such great importance. The autopsy table? Have you ever seen one? They are made out of stainless steel and have large blood gutters and a body-fluid collection system. I would think that a state-of-the-art autopsy laboratory would certainly have a one of these instead of a wooden bench. There is no laboratory work light. The observation window makes me laugh. It looks like a piece of glass stuck on a flat. The wall is less than a 1/2 inch thick. I know there were shortages during the war, but please. . . And I love the "radiation suits!" Can you imagine performing a autopsy in one of those. Did you notice the dark lenses? How can you see out of those? Is there danger of the beast suddenly becoming so bright as to cause blindness to the unprotected eye? Excluding the possibility of quaranteen issues, face masks are not generally worn during an autopsy because the "sterile field" doesn't need to be maintained (the patient is already dead). Problems of Context and Procedure: Does this look like the most important autopsy in the history of the world? Are these guys skilled pathologists? Who is the guy in the observation room and if he's in a separate room, why does he need a mask? Why no mention of any kind of quarantine? Where are all the Generals and other big shots who would have an intense interest in the world's greatest event. They certainly would have had clearance to see the creature. What about items of documentation? Why don't these "professionals" measure anything, could it be because they don't have any measuring instruments, a scale, a microscope or even proper autopsy forms? I must admit, however, they certainly put stuff in bowls well. And speaking about poor equipment, do you think this lab was well equipped? I wasn't impressed with a bunch of small bottles or the flask with a funnel shoved into it. What's with the ring-stand and Bunsen burner? These were not even set up correctly. Where's the Still Photographer and his camera? Still photographs are a standard feature of documentation. This event must certainly not be very important considering the lack of photographic documentation. They store their stainless steel pans on the floor, does this seem professional to you? Did you notice the autopsy ended when they ran out of pans? What about their bedside manner? Picking up a hand or grasping the neck doesn't seem like an examination to me, it looks like two actors who don't know exactly what to do. Why does the one start to slice the cadaver from the bottom up and then seconds later start at the top and go down? Maybe he was just an intern. And then there's the time element thing. Did you watch the clock? Did you notice that it took only 10 minutes to remove entrails from the abdominal cavity. That's because they were loose. Now that's what I call convenient. Maybe this is a drive-up autopsy facility. What about that big round liver (or heart) thing. If it's so prominent why can't we see its form under the skin before the creature is opened. Did you notice how the pathologist tilts the scalpel? Did you notice that it didn't cut the skin. This is because the knife had a little blood tube taped to the back side of the blade. This is why the flowing blood of the incision is so consistent. This is a very old trick and very easy to do. If the scalpel was truly cutting the skin, the skin would have pulled open, exactly like that time you cut yourself with Uncle LeVar's jack knife. Why is it that the narrator seems to be the only one to see the inanimate object taken from the chest cavity. (If something is dead, how can you determine that it is inanimate?) What about the masked actor in the observation window, certainly he would have a camera, notes, an ID badge or some other function than just to act interested. Don't you think he over-acts a bit? Good thing his face is covered. Special Effects Issues: Production costs of such an effect It has been implied that such an effect would be too expensive and difficult for a hoaxter to produce. I think that with the arguments presented above I've shown that the hoaxters DIDN'T put enough time and money into their production. Please remember that the most expensive part of any production is talent. This expense is easily overcome with pure, plain enthusiasm. We see this same kind of energy go into countless student film projects every year. I know dozens of special effects artists and film professionals who would love to be part of a great hoax, its not an issue of money, its an issue of time. As I've said before, the creature itself is very well crafted. My hat goes off to the fine talents who created it. Could it be done without Hollywood talent? Of course, Hollywood doesn't have a corner on artists and sculptors. I need to say one more thing about motivation. To believe that people wouldn't undertake a project of this magnitude without the motivation of money or recognition is underestimating human nature. How many guys do you know who puts thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into a beatup old car or some other crazy project? Make one Yourself: Could this be done without a Hollywood budget? Absolutely. Here's how I would make the dummy for less than $500. (Assuming all labor would be donated) I would do a life-cast of a girl or short woman about the same height as the creature I wanted to create. This would require alginate and plaster bandages and a great deal of patience on the part of the model. From the life cast I would make a plaster master which would be a duplicate of her body. On top of this, I would sculpt the alien features including the enlarged head, stomach, extra appendages and eyes. Next I would make a 2-part plaster mold or molds, depending upon size and complexity of the parts. I would use plaster because I'm on a budget and only intend to use the mold once or twice. After the mold has set I would remove the plaster master, this would get destroyed in the process. I would clean the mold and let it dry out. Rather than use the expensive silicones used in Hollywood today I would simply fill the closed mold with latex slip casting compound. This would form a nice smooth and consistent skin around the inside of the mold. After the latex dries I would leave the skin in the mold and fill it with a 2-part pourable polyurethane expanding foam. This would insure that the dummy retained its correct form. After some repairs and touchup, rubber-mask make-up or paint would complete the skin and body. For entrails I would take all the scraps and other stuff scattered around my shop floor and drench these with goo. To make the "heart" and rib cage I would repeat the most of the above process but on a smaller scale. Polyurethane foam doesn't stick well to latex, this works well as a great skin "peeling" effect. I would never let the public have access to my original creation, but would only allow them to see photos of the creature. "Intellectuals" would gladly step forward to authenticate the photos which would imply that the discovery was real. Any flaws in the presentation of the creature can be easily disguised with camera angles, film editing, goop or some believable explanation. All explanations could be collaborated with "eye witnesses". The best eye witnesses are the ones who repeat incredible stories from their loved ones, who of course have all since passed away or won't appear on camera. All fatal holes in the story can be attributed to a massive and powerful government conspiracy. Any denials on the part of the government would provide more proof of the cover-up. MATERIAL COSTS of an ALIEN DUMMY: Alginate 50.00Plaster Bandages 50.00Clay 25.00Plaster 60.00Hemp fiber 60.00Latex 80.00Polyfoams 75.00Paints 50.00Misc. 25.00Bribe to keep little brother quiet 20.00Replacement of mom's saucepan 5.00 TOTAL $500.00 Conclusion: I see no need of continuing my critique beyond these comments. However flawed, the witnesses and the space-ship wreckage must go without comment today. I've only seen the program a few times so I'm sure many other wonderful observations will surface with time and continued study. Once again, my apologies to all the true believers who may feel that I've been unduly cynical or overly critical. I'm sorry, but for me this "evidence" just doesn't cut it (no pun intended). It's just a TV show with a clever premise. If cornered, I'm sure the program's producers would admit that the show is for entertainment and shouldn't be taken seriously. It's within that context that I close my remarks, this has certainly been entertaining. I hope another hoax emerges soon so that I can have fun with it as well. Meanwhile, sharpen those special effects skills, maybe YOU will make ME a believer! Steve Biggs, Hoaxbuster OUR HOME PAGE © 1995 Special Effect Supply Co., Posted: 11-29-95, Last Update: 11-29-95