Alien Autopsy Film a Furphy
August 21st 2007 03:55
Category: No Category
The said “original” footage of the Roswell crash site in my opinion is a very elaborate hoax.
Before anyone jumps up and down and accuses me of being biased we need to consider the facts.
I have looked at the footage and although it looks authentic as the items in the room all seem to be period articles such as the wall clock the old phone the tray that the medical instruments all point to the being genuine. This is not that significant given these items are still obtainable form collectors and antiques shops.
The 16mm film can be dated by using the Kodak Eastman manufacturing marks and every peace of film form the early 1920 onwards has the manufacturer marks stamped on the film. And the film stock used appears to be made by Kodak Eastman reversal monochrome film.
This film batch number puts the manufacture of this particular film stock as being manufactured in 1927 the same marks where used for film manufactured in 1945 and 1967 the film used in producing this autopsy could have come from any of these dates.
The film has aged very well considering it is said to be made 60 years ago almost too good to be true in fact there should be more surface scratches on the film and have some evidence of emulsion fading inconstancies common with film that has aged, but I did not see any of that on the film.
The lighting in the room is very bright and it almost has a cinematic quality meaning that there are no dark shadows or varying light levels in the scene all the lighting is uniform.
You would expect a autopsy room to have bright lights yes but these light should be set on the ceiling and would cast some shadows but there is a distinct lack of any shadows on the walls or floor.
The other problem I have is that the lighting source used is not consistent with the lighting techniques and lighting equipment used in the 1950s where the bright lights used then where mostly tungsten filaments or carbon arc.
I suspect that the lighting source used to make this film used more modern lighting technology and the luminosity given in the film is consistent with HMI a (form of quartz halogen not invented until the late1960s) lighting which is commonly used in today’s film and television productions.
This particular light gives very short pulses around 50 Hz per second which the human eye cannot see but if you slow the film speed with proper forensic imaging tools you will be able to see the lighting “flicker” at the same rate the probability being that the lighting used was halogen metal halide (HMI)
The autopsy goes on to show in graphic detail the dissection of the cadaver and the subsequent removal of organs. The footage was shown to legendary Hollywood SCFI artist Stan Winston who was responsible for making the creatures of Alien and many others Hollywood productions commented on the complex detail used to make this look authentic and said that he could not make a copy that looked as good as the one shown to him he said that the blood running down the incisions was uniform and natural looking and very hard to duplicate.
Surgeons who have seen the footage commented that the internal organs where not human and did not conform to similar body parts such as the brain liver and other organs normally found on humans. The head was disproportionate in size to the body and the hands and feet had six digits. The “alien” body is seen to be in reasonably good condition given that it would have endured tremendous G forces when it hit the ground and would have been subjected to more traumas and it only sustained a badly charred right leg with no other abrasions or visible injuries.
A pathologist commented that the body did resemble a rare genetic disorder called Turner’s syndrome whereby the head is larger than normal and the ears are set lower down. The body could have been of a female who died in her early teens, people who have this disorder do not live passed 20 years of age. Because there was no forensic evidence to test for this disorder it can only be a speculative finding and therefore not conclusive.
WATCH THE VIDEO
After further digging there where other instances of similar autopsies that where labeled as fakes.
An interesting turn of events was when the creator of Max Headroom, a 1980s television cyber-presenter (a very popular series I might add) alleged he was responsible for making the Roswell autopsy film in 1995 in Camden just north of London the person responsible is claimed to be John Humphreys. Humphreys a visual sculptor has created special effects for the film Charlie and the chocolate Factory starring Johnny Depp. Humphreys purported he made the sculptures using latex and cast the model in clay the organs where a mixture of real animal entrails and other body parts taken form an animal slaughter houses. In my opinion this production is very convincing however given the inconsistencies with sections of the image being out of focus and the lack of apparent film aging I do not consider this production to be authentic.
Before anyone jumps up and down and accuses me of being biased we need to consider the facts.
I have looked at the footage and although it looks authentic as the items in the room all seem to be period articles such as the wall clock the old phone the tray that the medical instruments all point to the being genuine. This is not that significant given these items are still obtainable form collectors and antiques shops.
The 16mm film can be dated by using the Kodak Eastman manufacturing marks and every peace of film form the early 1920 onwards has the manufacturer marks stamped on the film. And the film stock used appears to be made by Kodak Eastman reversal monochrome film.
The film has aged very well considering it is said to be made 60 years ago almost too good to be true in fact there should be more surface scratches on the film and have some evidence of emulsion fading inconstancies common with film that has aged, but I did not see any of that on the film.
The lighting in the room is very bright and it almost has a cinematic quality meaning that there are no dark shadows or varying light levels in the scene all the lighting is uniform.
You would expect a autopsy room to have bright lights yes but these light should be set on the ceiling and would cast some shadows but there is a distinct lack of any shadows on the walls or floor.
The other problem I have is that the lighting source used is not consistent with the lighting techniques and lighting equipment used in the 1950s where the bright lights used then where mostly tungsten filaments or carbon arc.
I suspect that the lighting source used to make this film used more modern lighting technology and the luminosity given in the film is consistent with HMI a (form of quartz halogen not invented until the late1960s) lighting which is commonly used in today’s film and television productions.
This particular light gives very short pulses around 50 Hz per second which the human eye cannot see but if you slow the film speed with proper forensic imaging tools you will be able to see the lighting “flicker” at the same rate the probability being that the lighting used was halogen metal halide (HMI)
The autopsy goes on to show in graphic detail the dissection of the cadaver and the subsequent removal of organs. The footage was shown to legendary Hollywood SCFI artist Stan Winston who was responsible for making the creatures of Alien and many others Hollywood productions commented on the complex detail used to make this look authentic and said that he could not make a copy that looked as good as the one shown to him he said that the blood running down the incisions was uniform and natural looking and very hard to duplicate.
Surgeons who have seen the footage commented that the internal organs where not human and did not conform to similar body parts such as the brain liver and other organs normally found on humans. The head was disproportionate in size to the body and the hands and feet had six digits. The “alien” body is seen to be in reasonably good condition given that it would have endured tremendous G forces when it hit the ground and would have been subjected to more traumas and it only sustained a badly charred right leg with no other abrasions or visible injuries.
A pathologist commented that the body did resemble a rare genetic disorder called Turner’s syndrome whereby the head is larger than normal and the ears are set lower down. The body could have been of a female who died in her early teens, people who have this disorder do not live passed 20 years of age. Because there was no forensic evidence to test for this disorder it can only be a speculative finding and therefore not conclusive.
WATCH THE VIDEO
After further digging there where other instances of similar autopsies that where labeled as fakes.
An interesting turn of events was when the creator of Max Headroom, a 1980s television cyber-presenter (a very popular series I might add) alleged he was responsible for making the Roswell autopsy film in 1995 in Camden just north of London the person responsible is claimed to be John Humphreys. Humphreys a visual sculptor has created special effects for the film Charlie and the chocolate Factory starring Johnny Depp. Humphreys purported he made the sculptures using latex and cast the model in clay the organs where a mixture of real animal entrails and other body parts taken form an animal slaughter houses. In my opinion this production is very convincing however given the inconsistencies with sections of the image being out of focus and the lack of apparent film aging I do not consider this production to be authentic.
| 84 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
The "g" forces issue, there supposedly are no G forces in a craft that can produce a field that separates it from gravity forces, except the final full stop of a crash, and who knws how they were contained inside?
I also saw an analysis of it, there are inconsistances, and the lighting and the loss of focus etc are of interst, the loss of focus was to be expected when moving about with a 16mm hand held, it would be far more suspicious of it was always in focus.
The lighting could well be a mix of whatever was in the room plus additional from two opposing angles and you will eliminate shadows, which would be the thing to do if you knew you could not interrupt, nor request someone move etc, and so you would plan ahead and make sure there was plenty of light from all angles.
Interestingly, there is a book I have which details all these documents gained under freedom of information, and if it was just a weather ballon in Roswell, then it is more than curious that the documents regarding troop movements, certain high ranking military and politicians showed them all turning up at Roswell at that same time, including the man doing the autopsy, who did not follow normal procedures, but what he did do, was that expected of a surgeon, not a forensic man and that the military surgeon was at Roswell at that time, but it was not his base in the area.
But, who knows in the end, it does not matter too much, as there is far more compelling evidence of recent times.
cheers
fog
Comment by Damo
I have read about this too.