Q: Why don't you discuss the "Roswell
Incident" itself?
Because we don't have any useful information to offer. Sure,
we have opinions like many people do - but who the heck needs
to hear more uninformed opinions?
If you want info about Roswell or any other UFO-related
topic, there are numerous other
websites available. (And if for some reason you really
do want uninformed opinions, just visit the newsgroup
of your choice!)
While we're on the subject, here are a few other topics this
website doesn't discuss:
- the existence or non-existence of UFO's and/or aliens
- the question of whether or not aliens really visit our
planet
- whether or not the "Roswell Incident" really
happened
- accusations about who's hoaxing whom, or why
- the highly controversial curly phone cord
So, if you were planning to send us some angry email because
you think we did say something about any of the above
- well, you won't be the first.
And that's fine. We rather enjoy it when someone
indignantly demonstrates their own poor reading comprehension
skills. (In fact, we may open up a new page devoted to some of
the tastier crank mail we've received. You have been warned!)
So just for the record, the function of this page is to
address two questions: "Could this particular 'autopsy
film' be faked?" and "Does it appear to be
faked?" Comments, questions, and rebuttals related to
those questions are welcome.
Q: Who were those famous
special-FX guys on the FOX-TV show who said they couldn't do
effects like this? Why don't you mention them?
They were Stan Winston and three of his staff. Stan is
indeed famous, and rightly so. His company has turned out some
incredible work.
But watch the tape again. What they actually said is
they believed the autopsy was nicely done, some of it looked
very difficult, and it was hard to believe it could have been
done in 1947. And we agree on all counts, except we know one
thing they apparently didn't - there's
no reason to believe the film was made in 1947.
And we do mention Stan. He's listed in our
FX Artist poll.
Q: What about those pictures of
somebody touching up the alien with a makeup palette?
BUFORA investigated
this and concluded the pictures were fakes. (A hoax on a
hoax!)
Q: What about the shot where the
alien blinks?
It doesn't. The "blink" is a glitch in either the
film print or the video transfer.
Q: You can't say for sure what an
alien body would really look like.
No - and neither can anyone else. However, we do know what
rubber dummies look like, and we think we're looking at one in
this film.
Q: If it's just a dummy, why do so
many doctors and pathologists think it's a deformed human?
"Recognizing movie illusions" isn't part of any
medical training we know of. The average doctor or pathologist
is just as likely to fall for a special effect as the average
janitor, astronaut, or secretary.
But if you think the best opinion about a fake corpse would
come from a doctor, then at least be fair - the next time you
need surgery, let an FX artist do it!
Q: Did you make this
alien?
Nope.
Q: Do you suspect someone of
making this alien?
When the film first aired, many Hollywood FX artists
suspected a certain person (though there was never any hard
evidence on which to base those suspicions). A colleague of
ours finally called the "suspect" and asked him
straight out. The response was that he was aware of the rumors
about him, and he found it almost flattering that his peers
thought he was capable of creating this alien.
That was before he saw the film, however. After he
saw the film, he says, he wasn't so flattered after all!
And we probably can go ahead and say the "suspect"
was Gordon Smith, now that Time
Magazine has spilled the beans.
Q: If this hoax originated in a
Hollywood FX shop, somebody would have figured out who did it by
now.
We think so, too - the Hollywood FX community is fairly
small, and everybody generally knows what everybody else is
working on. (Probably the only reason Gordon Smith was ever
named as a suspect was that he's based in Toronto - so nobody
knew what he'd been up to lately.)
Which is why, now more than ever, we suspect the autopsy
film originated somewhere in Europe.
NOTE: The above was our answer until 2006, when the the hoaxers finally confessed.
Q: You're just using this topic to
promote yourselves.
The day we opened the original autopsy page, we listed it
with the major search engines and posted one announcement in
one USENET group. So if we're doing this for self-promotion
we're certainly not doing a very good job of it. The attention
has been due to word of mouth, and links from other pages
whose owners seemed to think it was worth letting people know
about (and a minor flurry of press
coverage that caught us completely by surprise).
And what exactly are we supposed to be promoting - the fact
that we know how to do our job? The information here is hardly
proprietary or unique to us, and therefore isn't at all
impressive to anyone actually in the motion picture
business.
That's our whole point - the techniques we describe here
are common knowledge in our industry. Hundreds of artists who
also possess this knowledge are out there, and any of them
could have used it to create this alien. We just wrote it down
and put it on the Web, that's all.
We never expected this little section of our Website would
be so popular, but we're glad people are interested in this
info. (And we don't mind a bit if you only look at the autopsy
pages.)
And before you ask - we didn't get paid for our article in
The Skeptical Inquirer, or UFO Times or for
any other alien autopsy-related attention that's happened to
come our way. (Which is fine by us - we already have
jobs, after all!)
Q: Why don't you make your own
alien to prove you can really do it?
We're not trying to prove we can make an alien -
we've got enough proof of that. We're offering our
professional opinion about whether this particular alien
appears to have been made by somebody, and how it
might have been done.
Besides, we'd rather do other things with our own time and
money than make a bogus alien autopsy flick.
Not to mention the fact that the "alien autopsy
re-creation" market is already
oversaturated!
Q: If you're not trying to prove
you could do this, why is your article written the way
it is?
We wrote the article in the first person to show not just
how, but why creatures are built the way they are,
and how evidence of both can be seen in the finished film.
Q: So how much would the process
you describe here actually cost?
Hard to say. For example, a group of FX artists who had a
well-stocked shop, some surplus materials and some free time
could have done it for fun - and an out-of-pocket cost of
nearly zero.
On the other hand, if this was a work-for-hire job then the
price is whatever the artists charged the client. If they got
a lot of money for it - hey, good for them!
But if you want numbers, here are a few. Bear in mind - this
isn't an attempt to pin down the exact cost of the original
film. They might have spent more or less than our estimates,
depending on the circumstances.
Anyway, our estimates for an autopsy corpse as seen
in the film would be:
- Cost of materials only (assuming everyone contributed
their labor for free): $ 5000.00
Note: the Gosselin brothers in Quebec did
a very nice autopsy re-creation
for $2000. Way to go!
- Materials and labor (4 technicians for 4
weeks): $ 30,000.00
- To make the entire film - alien corpse, props,
sets, costumes, shooting costs in 16mm black and white,
salaries, and a comfortable safety margin: $ 50,000.
The whole thing could be done with a crew of four
or five - assuming the FX artists also played the on-screen
roles (which we kinda suspect they did).
These prices are based on going rates in Hollywood, which are
probably higher than anywhere else in the world. Even so, we're
still hearing the figure of a million dollars or more being
tossed around - hey, for a million we could do a feature-length
autopsy and buy BMW's for the entire crew with the money left
over. (Anyone offering? Didn't think so.)
Q: Could this autopsy
have been faked in 1947?
We seriously doubt it.
Q: Well then - if the film is ever
proven to have been shot in 1947, that's gonna shoot some big
holes in your hoax theory, won't it?
It certainly will. Let us know the minute that happens,
okay?
PLEASE NOTE: As of this update (December 2001) the
age of the film is still unverified, despite what you may have
heard or read.
See our Film verification page
for more on that.
Q: Are you part of a
disinformation campaign?
Would we admit it if we were?
