By: David Bloomberg Re: Still MORE on the +quot;Autopsy+quot; Found this recently (I would

By: David Bloomberg
Re: Still MORE on the "Autopsy"

Found this recently (I would have seen it sooner, but I accidentally let my
subscription lapse):

Skeptical Inquirer January 1996

Special Report
A Surgeon's View:
Alien Autopsy's Overwhelming Lack of Credibility

Author:  Joseph A. Bauer, M.D.

The remarkable aspect of the alleged Roswell alien saucer crash is
that in nearly 50 years of tenacious efforts to legitimize the event
by scores of believers and supposed witnesses and participants, not a
single, solitary bit of tangible, credible evidence has been found to
support such a fantastic and significant event. Despite the reports of
extensive debris found in the field at this alleged crash site;
despite the many who allegedly handled material fragments with amazing
qualities; despite hearsay that the alien bodies and craft were
spirited away with unheard-of government efficiency and conspiratorial
secrecy to locations that remain mysterious and unproven; despite all
these exceedingly unlikely occurrences, no one has surfaced with a
hint of convincing, supportive evidence; not even a tiny piece of that
mysterious material scattered so widely and handled by so many has
surfaced for examination. Didn't anyone slip a fragment into his or
her pocket? And now, perhaps to mark the event's upcoming 50th
anniversary, someone is apparently trying again to prove this was
really an extraterrestrial event -- this time with an alien autopsy
film.

I recognize that it is far easier to create a hoax than to unmask
one. But the question "Why?" effectively exposes the bizarre scenarios
depicted in the autopsy film as blatant fabrications.

Why introduce a film now, when alleged mortal fear of repercussions
from the government supposedly silenced all witnesses for decades? If
the film is authentic, why didn't someone cash in on it in a big way,
decades ago, selling it to the highest bidder in a worldwide auction
by an agent assuring anonymity of the source? Other than placing a
period clock and telephone in the scene, why didn't the filmmaker use
some rudimentary special effects to give the autopsy scenario at least
the appearance of being more than the clumsy gropings of veiled,
amateur actors impersonating medical investigators?

Considering that an alien autopsy would have been a unique event, the
maker of this film should have attempted at least to give the
appearance of the event being authentic and credible. Why not use a
group of actors trained in instrument handling? Why not progress
through a systematic autopsy process, rather than just slash and cut
out viscera? And wouldn't it have been better to show the need to take
many days or weeks to unravel and comprehend the allegedly
unrecognizable, misplaced internal organs? But none of these essential
procedures was observed, indicating that the autopsy was not
authentic, but was contrived by low budget, poorly advised
nonprofessionals.

There was no systematic progression of the autopsy, starting from a
careful examination and penetration of organs and orifices,
particularly since alien lore predicates extraordinary eyes, lack of
ears or hearing, imperforated oral cavities and questionable need for
gastrointestinal tracts, and no genital or anal structures. Next,
skilled unroofing of the body cavities would have been followed by
surgically precise and detailed dissection, delineating
interrelationships, continuity, and formations of the various unknown
internal organ systems, during which time decomposition of the body
would need to be prevented by some preservation or embalming
process. Indeed, there might have been a rare -- no, unprecedented and
unparalleled -- opportunity to study an alien corpse; but it was not
an autopsy that was needed, but rather, a systematic, lengthy,
detailed, precise, anatomic dissection and microscopic study of a
well-preserved body by a team of specialists of the various,
presumably strange, organ systems. No less than that was done in the
initial evaluations of the newly discovered Coelocanths. (When a
carcass of this primitive fish, thought to be extinct, was first
dredged from the depths of the Indian Ocean off Madagascar,
ichthyologists worldwide were involved in its dissection, study, and
preservation.)

Instead, the dramatic and graphic autopsy -- performed with far less
diligence and skill than a routine autopsy -- was staged by the
filmmaker in two scenes. First, the anonymous, hooded figures stand
around ineptly trying to occupy their hands, clearly devoid of the
rudimentary skills of manual examination of a body, generally expected
of any physician, clinical pathologist, or other medical
professional. This is followed by tentative, insecure incising, with
the operator's face peering down close to the body from which he or
she wants to be shielded by wearing the protective suit. Scene two
shows the body open; the same inexperienced, unskilled hands are
groping around randomly and unsystematically, and without efforts to
recognize or analyze organ structures, relationships, or
continuity. The bizarre body contents are blindly chopped out and
tossed into pans. Ironically, since the external body structure
appears so humanlike, the real question is, why should these internal
organs be so unrecognizable?

An autopsy is done to determine a disease process, a deviation from
the norm, or the cause of death. When the norm is unknown, as would be
the case with an alien body, then a careful anatomic dissection is
needed with frequent samples being taken for microscopic
examination. Anatomical dissection consists of precise steps of
delineation, tracing the continuity and relationship of each fold,
loop, or bulge to adjacent structures, particularly if the anatomy is
unknown and unrecognized as claimed here.

This poorly performed autopsy may have botched a golden opportunity to
learn much about this corpse. But it is consistent with an
ill-designed hoax. Observation of how ineptly the instruments are held
and used is also revealing, and distinguishes a skilled medical
professional from an actor. Scissors, for example, are not held with
the forefinger and thumb awkwardly pointing off sideways, as was done
in the film. Instead, the ring finger and thumb are placed in the
scissors' holes, the middle finger stabilizes, and the index finger is
used to direct the scissor tip precisely. Dissection should be done
with judicious irrigation and sponging of obscuring fluids (none was
seen in the film); dissection is done with direct vision of the knife
or scissor points and not by blindly cutting, as depicted. The
chopping out and removal of body contents would have totally distorted
the functional and structural relationships of organs and destroyed
the functional anatomy.

The peculiar headgear of these hooded operators is also
enigmatic. Presumably, the hoods were intended to protect against
microbes, vapors, or other alien toxins. But as shown, the hoods would
cause rapid asphyxia from anoxia and accumulation of exhaled carbon
dioxide. Where are the pumps and hoses necessary to supply fresh air
to the operators? Without a circulating air supply, the visors would
also have become rapidly fogged by condensation, and vision would be
obscured. The lack of a detectable air supply suggests that the hoods
used for this film were sufficiently porous for air exchange to occur
freely, and thus would provide no protection against toxic gases or
microbial contagion. All these observations are also most consistent
with an ill-designed theatrical mock-up, rather than an actual autopsy
of a potentially contagious, decomposing, alien corpse.

The mode of photographic documentation also raises countless
questions: Why did a professional photographer repeatedly, if not
intentionally, go out of focus and usually position himself or herself
behind the actors to obscure the view at the most crucial
moments -- such as when the cranium (head) was opened? Why was the
removal of the skullcap not seen, nor the in situ appearance of the
brain? Why was a movie camera chosen for documentation (since movie
cameras were known to have a focus problem) when efficient 35 mm still
cameras with close-up lenses and color film were available at the time
and commonly used for medical/surgical/pathological documentation?
Furthermore, why was the camera operator allowed to take away and keep
a film, when, according to testimony presented, an otherwise high
level of secrecy was exercised and enforced with mortal threats? Why
did the camera operator not ship this roll back to the military, as he
or she did with the other rolls of film, instead of notifying the
military to pick it up; and why did the
military -- incredibly -- allow the camera operator to keep this top
secret film? Of course a movie camera poorly focused and poorly
positioned would be the choice of someone intending to tantalize,
mislead, and not reveal any information in the course of hoax.

Only two conclusions are possible from this film: Either this is the
work of beginners attempting to create a hoax to resuscitate the
corpse of Roswell crash lore; or, if the film is intended to portray
an actual autopsy of an unusual humanoid body (a proposition untenable
and entirely unsubstantiated), then it is a documentation of the crime
of the millennium -- the brutal butchery, devastation, and destruction
of unique evidence and an unparalleled opportunity to gain some
understanding about this deformed creature, regardless of its origin.

I hope that this critique will not guide someone to produce a more
believable alien autopsy film.

Joseph A. Bauer is a surgeon in Cleveland, Ohio, and a member of
South Shore Skeptics.