|
Alien
Autopsy Film Review
by
Michel M. Deschamps
Copyright 2006
Michel M. Deschamps
Because
of the slow speed of my processor, I was unable to run the
avi clips smoothly. Despite this, I'm still able to give
an adequate review of the footage because I happen to have
in my possession copies of all 3 FOX airings of the "Alien
Autopsy: Fact or Fiction" program, as well as the commercial
version and an excerpt from Entertainment Tonight, showing
an unobstructed view of the being's crotch area.
When
I first saw the footage, I was speechless. I looked at it
very carefully, and the more I watched, the more convinced
I became of its authenticity. In my review, I will bring
up points which may or may not have been covered in previous
discussions. And when possible, I will include references
to information which may help to understand why this could
be the real thing.
REMOVAL
OF THE ORGANS
I
was fascinated by the fact that when the "surgeon"
was tugging away at some parts he was about to cut in the
foreground, other parts in the background were moving also,
as if everything in the body cavity was connected together...just
like it would be in a real "flesh-and-bone" body.
A
HOAX?
The
most obvious public response to the "Alien Autopsy"
footage was: "It's a hoax of unparalleled quality perpetrated
by someone, for whatever reason."
I
have a problem with this "conclusion." Nowhere
in the history of UFOs and their occupants had there been
any mention of a six-fingered, six-toed alien creature.
So
my question is....why would a hoaxer include additional
digits on this creature if his intentions were to perpetrate
"the perfect hoax" while keeping in mind his attention
to detail. Had he really paid attention to detail, he would
have known that those closely involved with the event have
clearly indicated that the Roswell creatures only had four
fingers and no opposable thumbs?
Since
the creature on the footage has six fingers and six toes
on its hands and feet, and does not match the descriptions
given by the Roswell witnesses, it cannot be the so-called
"Roswell alien". This leads me to believe that
it may have been recovered at a separate crash site. Contrary
to popular belief, the "Roswell Incident" isn't
the only crash/retrieval case to have taken place in the
south-western states...or anywhere else, for that matter.
In one particular account, as many as 16 small bodies were
found inside a single 100-foot diameter disc. Roswell's
popularity has grown greatly over the years and so much
focus has been put on it that all other incidents have been
either forgotten or ignored.
THE
DEBRIS
The
way the pieces were being handled gave me the impression
that they were very light-weight. Especially when the "soldier"
lifted the large pad off the table with one hand. That really
got my attention!
When
I saw the six-finger handprints, I was blown away even more.
Again, there had been no specific descriptions given in
the literature anywhere about these pads. All that was said
was: "One of the creatures found at the crash site
was holding on to a box." No one had ever mentioned
hand prints embedded within pieces of metal. So how would
a hoaxer know what the so-called "box" would look
like? And why go through all that trouble to create accessories
meant for a six-fingered alien when hoaxing the body alone
would have been sufficient?
Additional
information which may lend support for the existence of
six-fingered alien beings comes in the form of an eyewitness
account. Linda Moulton Howe interviewed Kathryn (K.T.) Frankovich,
great niece of Mike Frankovich Sr., famous Hollywood producer
and President of Columbia Pictures. In May 1992, she had
a face-to-face encounter with a six-fingered alien being
while walking her dog near her residence in Florida. Her
story can be heard on Real Audio.1
ESSENTIALLY
HUMAN?
I
doubt it very much. That kind of reaction I would expect
if the creature in the footage had been a Nordic-type being
resting on that table. Based on what Travis Walton had seen
during his encounter, as well as other folks around the
world who have reported similar beings, the Nordic types
closely resemble us humans in almost every detail - so much
so, that they could pass in a crowd and you'd never know
it. But THEY ARE EXTRATERRESTRIAL, regardless of their appearance.
Obviously,
this creature is humanoid in appearance, which means that
it has a head, a torso, two arms and two legs. From all
the sketches of UFO occupants that I have seen which were
made by those who have observed them, 97% are humanoid in
appearance while the remaining 3% have very exotic shapes.
Those ratios would seem to indicate that the humanoid form
is more prevalent in outer space than our scientists would
like to believe. Perhaps there is some kind of link between
us humans and these beings from elsewhere.
FEMALE?
As
far as saying that it is a female, I find this statement
absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about these
UFO occupants will tell you that most of them don't seem
to have any visible sex organs. The crotch area of this
particular creature is rounded off, and there is no indication
of a vaginal opening. Wrinkled skin, perhaps. Or a bruise
like those seen on its legs, but no sexual organs. There
was no reason for FOX to blur out the area since there was
nothing there to blur out. Some people have too much sex
on their brains. Get your minds out of the gutter!
NO
NAVAL
The
lack of a naval indicates to me that these beings may be
grown artificially, or by some other means not known to
man. Also, their feeding habits may be totally different
from what we are accustomed to, based on what I've heard
in some reports. Some abductees are reported to have rubbed
nutrients on the skin of small alien babies. Then a purple
light is shone on them and the nutrients are absorbed through
the pores of the skin.2
LOW-SET
EARS
One
intriguing detail is that the ears are set lower on the
sides of the head in comparison to those of humans.
EYE
COVERINGS
Another
intriguing part of the dissection was the removal of the
eye coverings - black membrane-like layers that covered
the eyeballs of the being. Again, a fact that was not well-known
at that time, as far as anyone was concerned. In her 1993
book, "Glimpses of Other Realities, Volume 1: Facts
and Eyewitnesses" Linda Moulton Howe wrote: "Some
abductees also feel the big, black eyes are artificial coverings
as we might wear sunglasses to screen out sunlight and that
underneath are 'cat eyes' or 'snake eyes' with vertical
pupils."3
Apart
from Col. Philip Corso's book "The Day After Roswell",
this was the only other place where the term "eye lenses"
or "coverings" had been written about.
On
closer examination, you can almost make out the dark iris
in each eye once the coverings have been removed. Whether
or not they are like cat eyes, I cannot tell due to the
poor quality of the image.
Also,
the eye sockets are larger than those of humans. I personally
know someone who has had two close encounters of the third
kind - he has seen alien beings at close range. And he told
me how their eyes, oval in appearance, are much larger than
human eyes. Even the small creatures that Travis Walton
saw had human-looking eyes, but were much bigger.
I
am still 200% positive that the footage is genuine, based
on the points that I have brought up. I have yet to see
ANY proof or evidence that would convince me that it is
a man-made fabrication.
I
believe that what might have caused most people to be suspicious
of the film's authenticity was the way it was badly handled
by Santilli. His ignorance of the UFO subject made it easy
for him to underestimate the importance of identifying,
cataloguing and validating the footage and its origin. In
essence, he helped to discredit the whole thing by being
secretive about its origin, and not allowing the film to
be properly tested by competent analysts. Let this be a
lesson if anything like this should surface again in the
future.
References:
1
See Lime
Grove Incident.
2 See Linda Moulton Howe's 1990 documentary, "Earth
Mysteries: Alien Life Forms".
3 See Glimpses of Other Realities, Volume 1: Facts and Eyewitnesses
by Linda Moulton Howe, page 274.
Cordially,
Michel
M. Deschamps
|
