"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."
Newsgroup: 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
