Thursday, June 23, 2005

One more (?) quick point about the AA that pounds the final nail in the coffin of those who think we're seeing mere special effects: Progeria shrinks subdermal fat tissue. This explains why the corpse being dissected has a conspicuous lack of it. Those straining to believe that the AA shows either a dummy or a dead alien have cited this as evidence that the being's internal structure is nonhuman, along with the apparent lack of nipples and navel (also explained by progeria).

Hopefully this will conclude my "alien autopsy" posts. Sorry if this got a little tedious. But my only real regret is that the UFO community -- of which I suppose I'm a part -- wasn't willing to "dig" into the progeria explanation as soon as it suggested itself. Sure, it was offered as a possibility, but discussion was limited and superficial; the overarching need to relegate the AA to special effects stunted the sort of dialogue just now materializing.

This is doubly embarrassing since the AA provides a possible link with Roswell, which is roundly considered one of most important UFO events of all time. If not for Nick Redfern's research, the AA would still exist in theoretical limbo. Instead, it now stands a fair chance of providing a vital piece of the puzzle to the events of the summer of 1947.

31 comments:

Dante Rosati said...

mac-

Despite your conviction (and the opinion of one German doc), it is far from convincing that what is being cut up is a human with progeria. It is still far more likely that it is a prop, as it has been identified as such by more than one FX expert who has viewed the film.

It can also be considered a fact that the folks in the masks are actors, not real pathologists, according to the reviews of the film made by real pathologists who have no trouble telling a real autopsy from a staged one.

So what are you saying it is: a faked autopsy of a progeria sufferer made to look like an alien?? a faked autopsy of a victim of a secret government conspiracy to torture progeria sufferers?? These scenarios are highly unlikely and I cannot imagine a motive for either of them.

It is more likely that it is exactly what it appears to be: a hoaxed alien autopsy film.

Mac said...

Give it a rest, Dante.

Dante Rosati said...

give what a rest? you are talking like you have conclsively proved something when you have only really convinced yourself of your own wild speculation.

The fact that you and one german doctor think that it sort of looks like someone with progeria (and there are many others who disagree) is not proof of anything.

you say it is "almost certainly a human being". do you really stand by a statement like that?

anyway- what does it really matter if the hoax was filmed with a rubber doll or a deceased human, beyond disrespecting the dead? the only important question then becomes was it hoaxed by the government as disinformation of was it hoaxed by private individuals for profit?

RJU said...

I kind of agree with Dante's conclusion: the only important question then becomes was it hoaxed by the government as disinformation of was it hoaxed by private individuals for profit?

The hoaxers appear to have been trying to tie the hoax to the Roswell incident, but if it is a hoax, it would seem that it would not tell us anything either way about the true nature of what might have happened near Roswell in 1947.

Mac said...

you are talking like you have conclsively proved something when you have only really convinced yourself of your own wild speculation.

I haven't convinced myself of anything. I think progeria is the best explanation for what we see in the film, wherever it comes from.

You're a typical debunker who demands "extraordinary evidence," but chooses to retain the right of deciding what constitutes
"extraordinary." You keep moving the goal-post on me. Nothing I post is good enough, even if it satisfies your original demand.

The fact that you and one german doctor think that it sort of looks like someone with progeria (and there are many others who disagree) is not proof of anything.

It's not "proof." But it's excellent circumstantial evidence.

you say it is "almost certainly a human being". do you really stand by a statement like that?

Certainly. I'm not committing myself, but that's what the evidence suggests. Am I supposed to issue some sort of apology?

anyway- what does it really matter if the hoax was filmed with a rubber doll or a deceased human, beyond disrespecting the dead?

Wait a second. You just got done demanding evidence and berating me. Evidently this was important enough to you to flood the comments section. But now that I've countered your detractions it doesn't "really matter"?

the only important question then becomes was it hoaxed by the government as disinformation of was it hoaxed by private individuals for profit?

Oy! Have you even read my posts? I've answered your questions and it's not good enough. Your mind is obviously made up. Mine's not, but I have good reason to think the AA depicts a human corpse. Until something new happens, I simply don't have time to "debate" with you, because you're changing the rules as you go along.

Mac said...

RJU and Dante--

It is an important question. That's why I devoted a somewhat lengthy post to the various hoax possibilities:

http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com/2005/06/so-alien-in-autopsy-film-is-almost.html

PrincessFiona said...

nice blog... 'bout aliens, UFO's etc...very interesting huh!

Mac said...

Glad you like it!

Dante Rosati said...

at first i thought it was interesting to see if the details in the film could even be interpreted as progeria, but then i realized that given the fact that it is almost certainly a fake autopsy, it doesn't really matter if it is a mannequin or a corpse- what is of interest is why a fake autopsy film would be made in the first place.

I think we can assume that if it is a progeria corpse, then the reason is that it is meant to pass as an alien. So we have a film meant to look like an autopsy of an alien, regardless of what "props" were used to make it.

It might be argued that private hoaxers would not be likely to have access to progeria corpses so if indeed it is one (which I still doubt) then it might point more to the theory that it is a government disinfo production.

Having said all that, I'd still place my bet that its latex.

Mac said...

I think we can assume that if it is a progeria corpse, then the reason is that it is meant to pass as an alien.

An why, pray tell, are we "assuming" this? The whole point of my looking into this mystery (in the context of what Redfern has discovered) was to see what the autopsy really is, freed of the usual assumptions.

I've argued that the footage was "repurposed" as supposed evidence of crashed aliens in 1995, when Roswell was a big commercial issue and that the footage itself might represent something altogether darker.

It's abundantly obvious you've neither taken a look at Nick Redfern's evidence -- which is nothing less than chilling -- nor understood a word I'm saying.

Dante Rosati said...

what would be the point of filming a fake autopsy of a progeria corpse, if you dont think it was meant to look like an alien?

you youself in the previous blog entry say you think it was meant to look like an alien, now you're saying it was "repurposed" in 1995, so I ask "repurposed from what"?

If it was originally some kind of test flight or something in which the subject died, then the autopsy would be real. If the autopsy is fake (likely) then that cannot be the case.

So if its not a hoaxed alien autopsy, and its not a real autopsy of a deceased test subject, then what is it you're proposing it is?

RJU said...

I think this is an interesting subject. Here is another scenario that might explain the AA film: Some medical students witness the death of a progeria patient. Over some beers they talk about how much this person looked like some of the depictions of aliens they have seen. One of them suggests it would be great fun to unbury the patient and practice their new autopsy skills while making a film linking the autopsy to the Roswell reports. They later steal into a graveyard, unbury the victirm, make the film and get a hearty laugh everytime they hear or read any mention of the film.

This makes more sense to me than any "for profit" hoax- I can't see much money in this. It also makes a whole lot more sense than imagining any progeria victims were the test pilots for experimental aircraft or that the hoax is a disinformation campaign by the government. I don't contest the possiblily humans might have been used as radiation test subjects, but it seems really far-fetched to imagine any of them ended up lying dead on a ranch, not far from Roswell, N.M. In fact, we know there were many unwitting radiation test subjects; soldiers who were sent to close to observe many of the early atomic test sites. If people were used in radiation experiments does anyone really believe they would chose someone suffering from a serious disorder like progeria? It would make more sense to chose someone without any abnormalities, in order to properly assess what the effects of radiation might be on a normal person.

W.M. Bear said...

Mac's evidence and arguments that the corpse is a real human corpse and neither a plastic dummy nor an alien seem overwhelming to me. (No, I haven't read Redfern's book either though it's definitely on my list -- his Web site seems mainly devoted to selling his books!) But right now, it also seems to me that that's about all we can legitimately conclude.

It does strike me that it is possible that the film may be a hoax in the following sense. Someone could have obtained the corpse of a progeria victim (possibly from a medical school or morgue) and staged the whole thing AS an "alien autopsy." This might account for the somewhat "stagy" and "amateurish" quality of the production that some critics noted. I mean, how can we KNOW (or determine) that the victim was NECESSARILY subjected to experiments (radiation, genetic, or otherwise) as part of someone's "black op"? (The evidence does sound very suggestive of this, though, I have to admit.)

Dante Rosati said...

all that has been shown is that six fingers is not inconsistent with progeria. this is a long, long way from proving that it is a progeria corpse.

Personally, looking at photos of progeria people (including the one posted on this blog) and then looking at the AA critter, I just dont see it. The resemblance is superficial at best, and really not very close at all.

I have no interest in "debunking" anything. I just think the AA is a latex hoax, Roswell is way too much of a quagmire to bother with, and there are gazillions of more interesting cases in the UFO/abduction world worthy of investigation.

Saga said...

Admitting I have not spent time with the issue of the alien autopsy film aside from occasional Coast to Coast and this blog, the thing that stands out in my mind is this. The "alien" has rather muscular shoulders and upper arm. Maybe I missed comment on this observation, but if it is a progeria subject, wouldn't there be an apparent lack of muscle tone?

Dante Rosati said...

dont confuse him with the obvious, saga...

:-)

W.M. Bear said...

The "alien" has rather muscular shoulders and upper arm.

If by "muscular" you mean a LOT of muscle, that's impressionistic and I certainly don't see it. In fact, quite the opposite. The biceps, especially, seem proportionately short and not particularly well-developed. Moreover, the shoulders don't seem at all broad or muscular to ME. And if you're talking about muscle TONE, ever hear of rigor mortis?

Another argument for a human corpse: Granted, this is impressionistic also, but the more I look at it, the more corpse-like the body appears, especially looking at details like the eyes and comparing them to the eyes of a living progeria victim. Plus, I think if someone WERE going to create a "plastic alien" it would look quite different. (Compare this body to all the "movie aliens" you've witnessed -- resemble any of them?) The quite visible vaginal slit especially is just not the kind of thing someone creating a plastic dummy of an alien would "throw in" I don't think.

Mac said...

Saga,

This looks like a reasonably "healthy" individual to me (by progeria standards). But I would have to agree with WMB that the sense of muscle tone is superficial and compounded by the body's bloated nature.

More investigation is called for. I would especially like to see the second autopsy that was never shown to the general public, since this could possibly confirm or refute the progeria hypothesis.


Dante,

Thanks for the rudeness. Personal attacks are, of course, the last resort of those with an emotional ax to grind. Please feel free to stop posting here; I recommend taking your wisdom to the UFO UpDates list.

Carol said...

"With the 'old children,' the subdermal fatty tissue shrinks. Their skin is tight and stretched like plastic wrap. In this way, progeria makes it appear that the navel is missing. 'It's like an umbrella,' declared Jansen, 'when I open it, all the folds disappear.'"

I'd like to point out that in late pregnancy, when the abdominal skin is stretched tight over a bloated belly, one of the odd things that most pregnancy books don't mention is the way an "innie" navel pops out to be an "outie." It's by no means missing, just turned inside out.

Mac said...

Re. "muscle tone": Progeria causes the skin to "wilt" and shrink, which has the effect of highlighting the underlying musculature. I think this accounts for much of the apparent muscle tone in the AA.

Kyle said...

A note to WM Bear,

Rigor mortis is a temporary effect of death. It lasts a very short time. Talk to a funeral home worker or a medical examiner...or just read up on it.

Look it up...and then learn to think.

Kyle
uforeflections.blogspot.com

W.M. Bear said...

Look it up...and then learn to think.

No need to be rude. I was suggesting a possibility not trying to dogmatize. Besides, who knows -- autopsies ARE often conducted shortly after death. Learn to think yourself!

W.M. Bear said...

In fact, the condition of the eyes (see close-up of head) would argue for an autopsy shortly after death. Typically the eyes start to dry up and shrivel to a fraction of their original size as a corpse ages. Look it up. It would also make sense that they (whoever "they" is) would want to do the autopsy quickly, before decay set in.

Mac said...

If this is an experimental test subject we're seeing, then I think it's extremely likely it would have been dissected very shortly after death to assess the effects of the experiment on living tissue as accurately as possible.

W.M. Bear said...

Sorry to keep harping on this but frankly kyle's rude, ignorant, snotty response calls for a reply:

About Chemistry

"A few hours after a person or animal dies, the joints of the body stiffen and become locked in place. This stiffening is called rigor mortis. Depending on temperature and other conditions, rigor mortis lasts approximately 72 hours. The phenomenon is caused by the skeletal muscles partially contracting. The muscles are unable to relax, so the joints become fixed in place."

72 hours is 3 days. I can't imagine them waiting longer than that after death to do an autopsy, especially if they were looking for the cause of death.

Kyle said...

Mr. Bear,

I sincerely apologize for any slight you perceive. I was simply responding to your post in the manner I observed in the post to which I was replying.

As for being rude, I cannot but agree that if you feel that way, I am responsible. As for being snotty or any other adjective...no...pejorative...you may wish to hurl reveals little more than your ignorance, unless we've met before.

I meant no offense, I just tend to use the vernacular and tone of the person I'm addressing. If you foudn me rude, perhaps a little introspection is in order.

Respectfully,

Kyle

Kyle said...

WM Bear,

You are right that rigor sets in within hours of death...sometimes up to 24 hours depending on the conditions at death.

You are correct also that rigor can last up to 72 hours.

My point was that once it is gone it is gone. In the AA film, the limbs are flexible. Rigor doen's make the corpse "hard", but it locks the joints tight, such that lifting a limb will lift the entire body. The fact that the leg is lifted off the table, but the rest of the body stays put indicates that the hip joint flexed to allow such movement of the leg. This movement is completely inconsistent with rigor. Of course, if the corpse is a model, this is all moot.

Hence my note that rigor is temporary, and not subject to coming and going.

On another note, I think one must tread very carefully in analyzing the thesis that the AA film was a hoax, if ny hoax you mean that the corpse was not ET, but a hapless victim of military/scientific atrocities.

I am of the opinion that the film was a hoax to fuel Roswell discussion, and reflects a fairly poorly realized corpse. The accompanying footage of the UFO control panels, etc, does little to support the government cover-up IMO, because there would be no reason to fake such scenes if the intent was to tell the public that the corpse was an alien. It was not necessary to film the tent scenes, since most Americans of the period did not believe the government would lie. They would have accepted the alien story with the AA film alone. It would have been quite shocking and effective if it had been released to the public contemporaneously with the Roswell incident.

If the thesis is that the cover-up was done more recently, to dissuade a deeper look into the Roswell case, the artifacts would have looked much more convincingly "advanced". The control panels look rather "cheesy" to me, and always have.

Surely alien technology would not require an anatomical component for its operation. We have been on a steady evolution toward technology being made for anyone to use...amputees, handicapped, etc. It strains credibility to think that an alien race as capable as Roswell requires (getting to Earth from somehwere far, far away) would have control mechanisms that actually required a particular hand and finger size, and required that each digit be fully functional. We wouldn't do that, and we're the primitives here.

I could certainly be wrong, however.

Kyle
uforeflections.blogspot.com

PS to WM Bear...no offense...sincerely. And I applaud your research on rigor. You learned and then you thought... :)

W.M. Bear said...

kyle -- apology accepted, introspection performed, opinion unchanged. :-) BTW, I would be the first to admit (and have) that I am no expert on the AA film. I did see the televised version a number of years ago, videotaped it, replayed it a number of times, etc. At the time, the more I watched it, the more I became convinced that it was a hoax more or less along the lines you describe, including plastic dummy. However, at the time, the POSSIBILITY that it might be a real corpse of a malformed human being didn't even occur to me. I find Mac's take on Redfern's theory (no, I haven't read the book yet) highly convincing. Nothing is airtight. But the more I look at the stills, the more it looks like a real person, possibly a progeria victim. Frankly, it just looks very WET. But ultimately, both sides are relying on essentially impressionistic arguments, even the real medical experts who have weighed in.

Mac said...

I highly recommend watching the autopsy in its unedited entirety.

Kyle said...

WM Bear,

If you e-mail me, I can perhaps arrange a copy of the unedited footage for your review.

Information is power...

Kyle
kyle@kyleking.com

W.M. Bear said...

kyle -- Thanks. My email is jsf2002 AT email DOT uophx DOT edu. When I get the time (currently working at two jobs!) I plan to revisit AA much more thoroughly -- review the CDs plus Redfern's book plus whatever other material I can assemble. Mac's posts have definitely rekindled an old interest in this whole issue.