Thursday, June 23, 2005

So the "alien" in the autopsy film is almost certainly a human being. Now what?

Maybe before we hold the government accountable -- as tempting as that is considering the progeria victims experimented upon by the military in the Roswell time-frame -- we should focus our energy on tracking down commercial perpetrators. If they're out there, I predict they won't be coming forward, as doing so would require admitting to having used a human corpse as a prop (unless certain "skeptics" groups, eager for confirmation, let them off the hook).

The mysterious six-fingered "control panels" featured in the "debris footage."

Another option, perhaps just as likely as the theory that the human in the footage died in a military experiment, is that we're seeing government disinformation using an unusual human corpse as a surrogate "alien." This might go a way toward explaining the black eye lenses (so much like those described by "abductees") and the six-fingered "control panels" and I-beams in the "debris footage." By adding elements sure to grab the attention of UFO aficionados, a government agency could create a made-to-order modern myth and observe its effects on the UFO counterculture . . . with the ultimate aim of negating evidence of either real UFO crashes or grisly human experiments.

This would explain the curious decision to use a progeria-afflicted corpse: The hoaxers would have to had known that someone would have made the connection between disease and the "alien's" anatomy, however obscure. Identifying the "alien" as a malformed human would collapse the theoretical house of cards built upon the "crashed alien" mythos, thereby weakening interest in legitimate UFO phenomena or secret military aircraft.

The intelligence community has always used the popular perception of UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft as a cover for "deep black" aerospace projects. An identical tactic could easily be extended into the realm of purported UFO occupants -- expose one intentionally absurd case as a fraud in order to further stigmatize UFO research, thus drawing even more attention away from classified programs.

Or, as I've debated in previous posts, the "control panels" and black lenses could be legitimate components of whatever experiment in which the human test subject died (assuming the AA footage is an authentic document and not an effort to deceive). If so, then we may have a valuable window into an overlooked and portentous reality that may well still exist in some form -- and we would be negligent to refuse looking closer for fear of the ubiquitous "laughter curtain" that keeps UFO research marginalized.


Kyle said...

Hi Mac,

You have quite a lively bunch here! *LOL*

On the point of "...The intelligence community has always used the popular perception of UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft as a cover for "deep black" aerospace projects....".

I see the obvious examples of the SR-71, the stealth fighter and bomber, and perhaps a few other sighted secret aircraft.

I have a little trouble making the leap from allowing sighted craft to be thought of as UFOs to creating an elaborate hoaxed film of what will be purported to be the autopsy of an alien being, and then create another elaborate hoaxed film of weird control panels with jagged broken ends and heiroglyphics.

The potential discovery of the hoax is just too great for me to believe they thought it would work. So many people involved, so many "props" required. Can you imagine someone spiriting away a "sample" from the films. Public expose' on how the control panels were made of cheap tin, and the "organs" removed from the corpse were made of rubber or something.

The best hoax is the simplest hoax. You might convince me that an autopsy could be concocted as disinformation, with only a small handful of participants who knew the importance of keeping secrets.

But to extrapolate the tactic used by the military...where the public is allowed to believe that sightings are UFOs, invigorating the popular belief in UFOs...into this highly theatrical, complicated, elaborate charade seems far-fetched to me.

I must say that I'm intrigued by the progeria victim explanation. If the body looked more "real", I'd dig deeper.

Without any additional evidence however, I just can't wrap my mind around this thesis.

I hope reading Nick's book will provide more illumination for the "Roswell as failed experiment on unfortunate vistims" storyline. I find THAT aspect very intriguing indeed.

I hope also that the true story of the AA film comes out. Someone will decide that a book deal would be worth it, I expect. Sooner would be better than later.

All the best, and a great series of posts on this enigmatic topic. Kudos!


Mac said...

Hi Kyle,

Lively indeed! (I've been checking out UFO Reflections, BTW. Good stuff.)

I sent a reply to Bob Shell's rebuttal on UpDates this morning. I don't think it's been posted yet. I see nothing in the footage to indicate an FX dummy. The body's stiffness is probably rigor mortis. Shell's bit about the eyes being inhumanly large -- even for progeria -- is simply bogus.

I'll post a point-by-point "analysis" here eventually, I imagine.

Kyle said...

Mac -

I look forward to the rebuttal of the rebuttal. *LOL*

The discussion has certainly invigorated the Updates List. :)

Ed Gehrman was kind enough to provide me his very nice copies of the AA film on cd, and the more I look at it...frame by frame...the more it looks hoaxed to me.

There is a quality that I have a very hard time describing, that dead bodies invariably display. It is a "looseness" and a "bottomheaviness" and a "fluidity" (even in rigor, which doesn't affect the soft tissues), and for the life of me, I can't see these qualities in the AA corpse. It me...appears more like a mannequin than an organic creature.

I can conjure up all kinds of explanations for the things I see that indicate hoax, but the authenticity of the film depends on far too many things that must be true of this subject, and I'm simply unable to accept that all of them occured in this one single film. It is far more likely that the object is what it most appears to be...a rubber model...and that the "problems" in the film are defects deriving from this.

These must be considered preliminary conclusions, however. I await a reading of Nick's book, and the body of discussion...including your rebuttal of the rebuttal...before attempting a final judgement. And even then, the door must always be left slightly, frustratingly, ajar...*LOL*

Best Regards,


Mac said...


I hugely appreciate your "wait and see" attitude. This subject is so polarized that it seems to most people that the footage *must* be an FX job or else proof positive on nonhuman visitation. (Shell and Gehrman, incidentally, aren't advocates of the "alien" hypothesis; they think the AA being is a non-mammalian humanoid that evolved here on Earth. An intriguing prospect, to be sure, but I don't think it explains what we're seeing.)

Kyle said...

Mac -

I have respect for Bob and Ed.

The "monotreme" thesis falls short for me, however.

Regarding Ed, I have a chunk of rock from his "crash site" location, which he sent me to scan in hi-res. It is an obvious igneous rock formation overlaid with a bluish-white crystalline deposit.

I forwarded the scans and a map of Ed's site to a number of PhD geologists, vulcanologists, and igneous petrologists, and the reactions were of a kind...typical cristobalite deposits, common in the area noted.

Every rock hound I've shown the scan to has reiterated the same's typical cristobalite deposits, formed by "splashing" of molten silicates onto the surrounding rock during natural geological events in the area.

After much e-mailing however, I actually got the State Geology Dept. of New Mexico (based in Socorro) interested in this story, and arranged for a state PhD geologist (a field guy who climbs on rocks every day) to meet Ed at his crash site...a site which he said he was familiar with, and had likely stood upon. The meeting never happened because Ed apparently forgot the man's name. (Virgil Lueth PhD.)

My life philosophy does not provide much space for "coincidence", so I feel a little as if Ed didn't want an open-minded expert to spoil his belief system. I could be wrong, and certainly have no reason to think that Ed is disingenuous, but his story lost a few rungs on the ladder in my book.

I did everything to assist in getting an expert, "on the ground" opinion, but Ed didn't seem to think this was very important. I think he felt that an "expert" would just tow the party line that the site was typical, when Ed "knows" that it is unique in all the world.

I was disappointed.

I am however continuing with a project to digitally scan the photos from the Richard Brunswick UFO collection, even as the photos therein appear...upon hi-res consist mainly of hoaxed images or misidentified birds.

I believe however that making such materials available to researchers is an important tool to help us all discern between images of anomalous phenomena and images of mundane things, or intentional hoaxes.

And for some perhaps, further evidence of ET craft.

At any rate, knowledge is power.

I agree that your birthday ties to Viking and HPL signify more than a quirk of "date". *LOL*

Best Regards,


Mac said...


I share your respect for Bob and Ed and think they should be applauded for keeping open the option that the AA might be real (even if we disagree on their frankly far-out conclusion).

Incidentally, Ed sent me a couple of the same Socorro rock specimens (as well as the unedited AA on CD).

Kyle said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kyle said...

Ed's rocks are interesting. But I must say the AA video is a vast improvement over the tv video. Along the lines of the full-frame restored Zapruder footage from a few years back. A whole new clarity, whichever side of the fence one comes down on.

Knowledge is power, and information its currency. Ed isn't above sharing, and that's something in itself.