Roswell autopsy
Bob & Louise
Alex P. LeClair wrote:(many good reasons to discount the autopsy film)
> If you would like
> more info. ask me and I'll go find it, I wrote all this by memory, but I
> remember there is like 33 facts that go against this being real and none
> going in favor of this thing being legit.
Alex,
Good post, and here's my favorite reason to discount that bogus film.
Movie cameras back in 1947 had film-drive motors that had difficulty
getting up to speed every time you started them up. This slowness
would always allow too much light onto the film in the first couple
of seconds of a new scene. This over-lighting would show up as a
bright-white flash, obliterating the picture, at the beginning of each
new scene. No such flash is seen in the autopsy film. The camerapeople
were using cameras made well AFTER the alledged time of the filming.
Bob
Alex P. LeClair
either a flash, or it goes out of focus, I forget it has been awhile
since I looked at the fraudtopsy film. I think the flash was from the
lamp that was in the room.
Bob & Louise
David A. Thomas wrote:
>
> Case 1: A convenience store is robbed. The clerk is an eyewitness
> and the security camera captures film of the event.
>
> Case 2: A hiker in Alaska spots a dinosaur off in the distance and
> films it with his camcorder.
>
> In case 1 the testimony is considered fairly solid, but not in case
> 2. Why is that?
>
> -----------------------------------
> davidt at visio dot com
David,
Because what's being shown in the film of Case#1 far more BELIEVEABLE
than what's being shown in the film of Case#2. But, as you know, we
can't proclaim something to be false just because it's DIFFICULT to
believe, any more than we can proclaim something to be true just
because it's EASY to believe. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed.
Bob
Joeman
Actually there is a very simple test to determine the age of the film.
I work at Eastman Kodak and have studied archived film. I have even met
with one of the experts interviewed at the Eastman House on prior
occasions.
The date on the film is a manufactured date. This film could have been
kept in a freezer and used many years later, so the date is practically
meaningless.
However, concerning the age of the film after the processing, there is a
definite issue.
Film which has been kept at ambient conditions of temp and RH% over a
period of years degrades. In order to preserve film over a period of
years, in must be stored in almost freezer like conditions. This is a
well documented fact, and an industry in itself.
If this film was truly shot in 1947, and "found" laying around, it would
surely have undergone severe degradation. What happens is that the base
itself degrades and forms an acid. Many of you may be famaliar with the
vinegar like odor of old film that has been laying around. As a result,
a simple pH analysis of the film, which would require a very small piece
of film, maybe 0.5 grams, would indicate the approximate age of the
film. We have models based on pH data which could easily determine this.
I have in fact gone to Eastman House and analyazed their archived film
myself.
Frankly, I am quite surprised no one has mentioned this yet. That in
itself makes it suspicious to me.
David A. Thomas
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote in article
<347BE1...@sprintmail.com>...
Believability is part of it. I think that the two cases are
significantly different in terms of their implications too. In the
first case, the implications are mundane (excepting the players
involved). In the second, the implications are earth shattering. A
live dinosaur? In Alaska no less? Start showing that video to
people and they're going to say "That's got to be faked... show me
some more evidence". Partly because it's hard to believe, and partly
because it would destroy theories and books left and right.
Something that profound needs more evidence.
Same with the Alien Autopsy film.
By the way, I think the next alien autopsy film should be *much* more
creative. Make the alien look like a jellyfish half covered with
exoskeleton, or a furry snake with five eyestalks, or ANYTHING other
than a humanoid. Please.
--David
Jan @ Jerry Bryson
Joeman <lam...@kodak.com> wrote:
> Frankly, I am quite surprised no one has mentioned this yet. That in
> itself makes it suspicious to me.
I think I recall seeing it mentioned. The "owner" of the film won't
lett anybody have it to test, as I remember. Seems he did hand over a
trailer of what he said was the film....
What did it for me was, it ain't how you do an autopsy, i.e. it wasn't
an autopsy, and probably not an alien, either.
Bob & Louise
David A. Thomas wrote:
> By the way, I think the next alien autopsy film should be *much* more
> creative. Make the alien look like a jellyfish half covered with
> exoskeleton, or a furry snake with five eyestalks, or ANYTHING other
> than a humanoid. Please.
> --David
David,
I agree. And not only for the additional entertainment value. A
totally bizarre looking alien would be EASIER to hoax, because
we wouldn't know how it's dead body should react to being moved
around. Also, the autopsy doctors could be excused for appearing
awkward, because no doctor would be totally sure as to how to
proceed.
Bob
Bob & Louise
Andrew McDonald wrote:
>
> I think it might be real because I was watching a t.v show on special
> effects and a bunch of special effects artists tried to create a body and
> do a convincing autopsy, it looked very real but the only thing that they
> could not do was make the body bleed when the skin was peirced, and in the
> roswell autopsy when the doctors cut the body it bled instantly. So I think
> it may have been real??
> --
>
> Andrew McDonald
> andr...@escape.ca
>
>
> Luc Castonguay <lcastong.bęt...@clg.qc.ca> wrote in article
> <3474BE...@clg.qc.ca>...
> > I saw many photographes showing Roswell autopsy. Are they tricked?
> >
Andrew,
For years, the movie industry has used "blood-knives". It's simply a
knife with a fake blade that releases a line of "blood" when pressed
against any object. It's one of the oldest special effects props in
the business. And here's the REAL kicker: When a dead body is sliced
into, it doesn't bleed. Our skin layers need to have blood being
pumped to them to be able to bleed. No beating heart, no blood pressure,
no bleeding. That's how police know which wounds were made prior to, and
after, death occured in a homocide.
Bob
Dan Clore
Bob & Louise wrote:
> Andrew McDonald wrote:
> > I think it might be real because I was watching a t.v show on special
> > effects and a bunch of special effects artists tried to create a body and
> > do a convincing autopsy, it looked very real but the only thing that they
> > could not do was make the body bleed when the skin was peirced, and in the
> > roswell autopsy when the doctors cut the body it bled instantly. So I think
> > it may have been real??
> > Luc Castonguay <lcastong.bęt...@clg.qc.ca> wrote in article
> > <3474BE...@clg.qc.ca>...
> > > I saw many photographes showing Roswell autopsy. Are they tricked?
> Andrew,
> For years, the movie industry has used "blood-knives". It's simply a
> knife with a fake blade that releases a line of "blood" when pressed
> against any object. It's one of the oldest special effects props in
> the business. And here's the REAL kicker: When a dead body is sliced
> into, it doesn't bleed. Our skin layers need to have blood being
> pumped to them to be able to bleed. No beating heart, no blood pressure,
> no bleeding. That's how police know which wounds were made prior to, and
> after, death occured in a homocide.
>
Sure, HUMAN corpses don't bleed ... and what does THAT prove?
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Bob & Louise
Dan Clore wrote:
>
> Bob & Louise wrote:
> > Andrew McDonald wrote:
>
> > > I think it might be real because I was watching a t.v show on special
> > > effects and a bunch of special effects artists tried to create a body and
> > > do a convincing autopsy, it looked very real but the only thing that they
> > > could not do was make the body bleed when the skin was peirced, and in the
> > > roswell autopsy when the doctors cut the body it bled instantly. So I think
> > > it may have been real??
>
> > > <3474BE...@clg.qc.ca>...
>
> > > > I saw many photographes showing Roswell autopsy. Are they tricked?
>
> > Andrew,
> > For years, the movie industry has used "blood-knives". It's simply a
> > knife with a fake blade that releases a line of "blood" when pressed
> > against any object. It's one of the oldest special effects props in
> > the business. And here's the REAL kicker: When a dead body is sliced
> > into, it doesn't bleed. Our skin layers need to have blood being
> > pumped to them to be able to bleed. No beating heart, no blood pressure,
> > no bleeding. That's how police know which wounds were made prior to, and
> > after, death occured in a homocide.
> >
>
> Sure, HUMAN corpses don't bleed ... and what does THAT prove?
>
Dan Clore,
THAT proves that there's one more reason to declare the "Alien
Autopsy" film a fake, and NOT a reason to conclude the film to be
genuine, as poor Andrew has done.
Bob
Chris Rathfoot
Bob,
When I reviewed the autopsy, it did not appear to bleed but rather seep
from the wound edges. This is very characteristic of fresh disections
secondary to the liquification necrosis that occurs in tissue
post-mortem.
The real issue of the film is why has the original not been made
available by Volker Spielberg. The answers are it will be either be
proven to be a hoax or that it will be proven to be true. Both answers
have strong proponents to make sure that the testing never occurs.
Michael Edelman
Chris Rathfoot wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> When I reviewed the autopsy, it did not appear to bleed but rather seep
> from the wound edges. This is very characteristic of fresh disections
> secondary to the liquification necrosis that occurs in tissue
> post-mortem.
>
someone standing up- and when they cut it, it oozed cow guts with no
apparant structure...
But that's just experience speaking.
Bob & Louise
Chris Rathfoot wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> When I reviewed the autopsy, it did not appear to bleed but rather seep
> from the wound edges. This is very characteristic of fresh disections
> secondary to the liquification necrosis that occurs in tissue
> post-mortem.
>
> available by Volker Spielberg. The answers are it will be either be
> proven to be a hoax or that it will be proven to be true. Both answers
> have strong proponents to make sure that the testing never occurs.
Chris,
I disagree. That Santilli guy has thrusted this film at the public,
along with statements implying that the film is genuine. The hoaxers
have the power to keep the film from being tested, because no laws
(matter of opinion) have been broken. The film's debunkers would
love to get that film into a test lab. It's Santilli & company who
are keeping it out of the lab.
Bob
Alex P. LeClair
Howpl wrote:
>
> >
> >Gee, when I looked at it it looked like a stiff latex mold made from
> >someone standing up- and when they cut it, it oozed cow guts with no
> >apparant structure...
> >
> >
>
> medicine telling me how phony the autopsy looked. Stan Winston and his crew
> all agreed they couldn't duplicate what they saw AT ANY COST. Cyril Wecht said
> the autopsists followed recognizable procedures. Why would either make such
> uncategorical statements?
> -Howard
I have seen 3 different groups of people do atleast just as good of job
at creating the autopsy. Strange Universe had 2 twin bros. do it within
2 weeks with only a few thousand dollars, another weekly news show did a
demonstration ( I think it was 20/20 I might be mistakin ), Sightings
showed different tech. that could be used. If Stan Winston is the
special effects guy that the Fox autopsy show had on, well I got news
that guy said he didn't think it was a actual alien. He was also told
that the autopsy film was dated to the forties or sixties. He initially
sounded impressed because he thought that who ever did this had to of
done it then, therefore under those conditions he didn't think he and
his crew could do it.
Bob & Louise
JR0 wrote:
>
> Re: Bob-Believeablity
>
> But what if the convenience store security camera captured on film an
> Alaskan Dinosaur doing the hold-up?
JRO,
The jury would lean toward dis-belief on that one. Alaskan
Dinosaurs are known to be extemely honest, to the point of
pre-paying for their gasoline purchases even in the DAYTIME.
The only mis-haps recorded involving Alaskan Dinosaurs as
convenience store customers, is that they, on occasion, have
eaten the clerk.
Bob
Jan @ Jerry Bryson
So THAT's what made them extinct!
--
Nescio ne sum, ergo penso sum.
Alex P. LeClair
Bob & Louise wrote:
>
> JR0 wrote:
> >
> > Re: Bob-Believeablity
> >
> > But what if the convenience store security camera captured on film an
> > Alaskan Dinosaur doing the hold-up?
>
> JRO,
> The jury would lean toward dis-belief on that one. Alaskan
> Dinosaurs are known to be extemely honest, to the point of
> pre-paying for their gasoline purchases even in the DAYTIME.
> The only mis-haps recorded involving Alaskan Dinosaurs as
> convenience store customers, is that they, on occasion, have
> eaten the clerk.
> Bob
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"Alex P. LeClair" <"sau...@bellsouth.net"@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"I love you,
You love me,
You'd be tasty with a cup of tea"
Howpl
> If Stan Winston is the
>special effects guy that the Fox autopsy show had on, well I got news
>that guy said he didn't think it was a actual alien. He was also told
>that the autopsy film was dated to the forties or sixties. He initially
>sounded impressed because he thought that who ever did this had to of
>done it then, therefore under those conditions he didn't think he and
>his crew could do it.
><
Winston is the guy and if you actually saw the program you would know your
information is only half-true. (1) Winston had his crew gathered with him and
they very clearly spoke about their present abilities. There's no doubt about
this at all. (2) Assuming 20/20 was accurate in its report -- they never
actually showed an interview with Winston -- the man does indeed say he
doesn't think it's an alien, but, then, what would you expect him to say? [I'm
sure he got a lot of ribbing for his appearance on the program; his
professional reputation was at stake and probably thought that discretion was
the better part of valor. The fact is, neither 20/20 nor Stan Winston ever
indicates what it is about the film that he -- and his crew? -- found
unconvincing upon second viewing.] Finally, 20/20 tried to duplicate in a very
loose sense and only a small part of the whole film. Winston and crew refer to
very specific effects (especially, the bleeding) and explain why they are
impossible to create even given today's technology. Do the other recreations
attempt to duplicate these specific aspects of the film?