Alien Autopsy Debris http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
"Discussion of the Debris"
The following are my observations on the "Santilli Alien Dissection Film"; specifically the "Debris" footage portion. The "Santilli" footage is either a scripted fictional film or a documentation of a real event. Some of my observations are based on the assumption that the "debris" is real and some are based on the assumption that the film was hoaxed.
I have a degree in Marine Diving Technology from Santa Barbara City College. My commercial diving experience was geared toward the offshore oil industry. One of my skills as a diver was welding. This involved stick arc, brazing, MIG (Metal Inert Gas), resistance, friction and TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) processes. I've welded materials as thin as 1/16 inch aluminum and laid down welds to fillet a 3 inch steel beam. I've been taught to use metal lathes, precision grinders, milling machines and drill presses and have also taken a course on magnetic particle and ultrasonic weld inspection at the
Welding Institute in Cambridge, England. My company, which I
own,designs and markets studio furniture layouts to radio stations nationwide using Autocad.
The ergonomic layout of the "Panels" and the possible proof that life exists on other planets or dimensions were the original sparks that ignited my interest in this footage. While I am not a Ufologist, I have always been intrigued with UFO sighting reports and the movies they have spawned.
I-BEAMS DETAILS
An I-beam has two flanges that are connected by the web. The first anomalous detail is found at the root portions of the I-beams. The root is where the web meets the flanges at a right angle. What I do not see at these locations on the I-beams is a radius. There would be a radius at that point (the root) to prevent cracks from forming. Any material that I know of, that has a crystalline structure, will develop cracks if two planes meet at right angles. I am assuming from the appearance of the break in the I-beams that the material has a crystalline structure.
The second detail is the thickness of the web in relation to the thickness of the flanges. I have not seen an I-beam that has a web that is as thick as these, as compared to the thickness of the flange faces. I have never seen anything that resembles the manufacturing technique used in the construction of these I-Beams. I know of no manufacturing process that could produce the multitude of details found on the I-beams.
DEBRIS MANUFACTURING OPTIONS
MILLING:
Could the beams have been milled? When milling something you start with a solid block of material and remove everything except what you need. Milling would be a good option if it were not for the thinness of some of the beams and the raised letters on both sides of the beams. When milling, the cutting tool is forced against the material. If the material is thin, especially at a root, meeting at acute right angles, the force of the tool against the material will cause it to
break. The raised lettering would have to be done with a very precise CNC (computer numeric control) machine. When I look at the lettering I see precise rounds as parts of the symbols. I don1t think you can do this with current milling machines.
EXTRUSION:
Extrusion is not a possibility because of the acute right angles of the roots and the raised lettering. There are some I-beams in the film that have more than two right angled roots. The raised lettering would be impossible.
ROLLING:
Rolling isn1t possible because of the acute right angle roots and raised symbols. Rolling implies that the final material shape is formed by passing hot material back and forth through rollers. If there are acute right angles, the material will break at the root during manufacturing. To form the raised symbols the hot material would have to be passed through rollers with the symbols engraved into them. This would mean you would only be allowed one pass through the rollers and you would have to keep the rollers clean through out the run. The detailed definition of the symbols would argue against this as a possibility.
MOLDING &CASTING:
At first glance molding or casting would seem the only way to make the I-beams and the panels but there are a number of factors that argue against this process:the apparent lack of weight for all the pieces ; the acute right angles at the roots; the thinness of the flanges of the I-beams; and the finely detailed definition of the raised symbols. The detail of the symbols on two sides of the I-beams would mean that if the I-beams were molded or cast you would have to use a very high density material to get the detail exhibited in the raised symbols. High density means that the pieces would be much
heavier than the indicated weight (the way in which the panels are handled by the soldiers). The I-beams are handled many times during the footage. One piece is even held in one hand by pinching it between the thumb and fingers. The weight of high density material would prevent this type of effortless handling. The material that the I-beams are made from appears to be very rigid and does not show any indication of bending while being handled in this manor.
LASER MILLING:
This might be a valid process to form the I-beams if it were not for the super smooth appearance on the flat surfaces. The raised symbols have many multifaceted details. These exhibit a smooth fine finish on tiny areas of their facets as well. These surfaces, including the ones in the symbols, are too smooth for laser milling.
FOAM CORE:
The debris could be made from foam-core paper board to solve the weight issue, but the following facts argue against this: The symbols are present on both sides of the webbing on the I-beams; the crystalline nature of the break in the broken beams; the reflectivity of the material in the break; and the rigidity of the I-beams.
Conclusion:
I do not see how the debris seen in the Santilli footage could be manufactured by any of the processes I've mentioned. If any of these processes could be made to work, or if this type of detail could be produced with some other type of process, then far more money could be made producing real products than would ever be made from an Alien Dissection hoax film.
FILM DETAILS
There is a small I-beam that has been broken. This break goes right through one of the symbols and is not straight. It would have been straight if it had not broken in the middle of one of the symbols. You can clearly see that the fracture line starts straight down the face of the web of the beam until it gets to the raised symbol. The fracture line then shifts just to the right of a raised portion of a symbol, skirts the raised portion of the symbol and then jumps back
to the left and continues down to the next flange face. The path of least resistance creates these dynamics. When the fracture line encountered the raised symbol, which can be thought of as increased thickness, it shifts away from the thicker material. It is a very small detail, minute, but this is the type of detail that says this is a real manufactured I-beam. I cannot imagine someone planning to put this small detail in a hoax film.
One of the I-beams I reviewed was about 5 cm from flange to flange. This is one of the smaller I-beams. I noticed that it had a melted circular shaped puddle on the left end (it was orientated with the symbols going from left to right). I have seen this puddle shape before in melted aluminum. The thing that caught my eye was that the puddle had collapsed and the puddled area appeared thinner than the unmelted part of the I-beam in the same area. An analogy would be if you took a thin piece of Styrofoam sheet and heated the sheet with a flame just enough in one area so that the foam lost its trapped air form. When the area cooled off it would be thinner than the rest of
the Styrofoam sheet (meaning lost volume in that area) but it would still weigh the same.
There are a lot of melted looking pieces of debris on the table. The large blobs of debris material seen on the table look like puddles that formed when the debris material melted. The curious thing about some of the smaller melted pieces is the shape they took after they cooled. What catches my eye is the thickness of the puddles. The surface tension was strong enough to counter gravity making some of the smaller pieces thick.
To understand what I'm saying, think of small drops of water in a clean pan. If the drops are small you1ll have a fairly round droplet. But as you increase the size of the droplet by adding more fluid, it starts to flatten out and turn into a puddle because gravity pulls on the center of the droplet and forces it down. A water droplet soon turns into a thin puddle. In order to keep the appearance of the debris droplets round and thick, the material would have to have a very high surface tension or be a really light or be really viscous.
There are consistent appearance characteristics in the the way these droplets melted and cooled.
There are large puddles of melted looking debris. One appears to be a melted I-beam because it has a hemispherical ridge running through the center of it. This detail matches hemispherical ridges found on the flange face of all the other I-beams. In another this ridge detail is missing.
The raised symbols indicate some type of writing. Each symbol has a myriad of detail and appears to be machine perfect. The symbols are located on the web of the I-beams and are the same symbols on both sides except they are in reverse order. I cannot think of a harder detail to undertake from a time and money standpoint if this is a hoax. The symbols do not look phony to me.
The detail that puzzles me most is the lack of mass that the panels and I-beams exhibit when they are moved. No material I have handled or seen handled that would be this light, would exhibit the properties of rigidity, reflectivity and the ability to show fine detail. I get the impression from watching the film that these things are so light that the only air resistance impedes their movement.
One soldier handles the large I -beam by squeezing the flanges between his thumb and fingers; this tells me that this I-beam is very light. Here is a problem for the hoaxer. The bigger I-beam would have to be made out of some type of foam to make it as light as it appears. Foam that is as thin as that on the large I-beam flanges would flex if it was twisted, squeezed or handled like the soldier does in the film.
The material is so reflective, any bend would be easily noticed,
especially if it were pinched between two fingers at the very edge of the flange faces. This debris appears to be extremely stiff.
The panels exhibit the same weight qualities as the big I-beams. One of the interesting things about the panels is that they are all different. If they are props then the prop maker had to make three different molds, two for the undamaged panels and one for the damaged panel.
An indication that the panels could be props is that the backside of the undamaged panels were never filmed. If the panels were hollow it would make the prop maker's job much simpler. I tried to think of a test that would prove that the panels were hollow and had no back. I looked to see if the soldier1s fingers curled up inside a panel as he was handling it. I viewed the footage frame by frame over and over. His fingers never seemed to go up inside the backs of the panels; in
fact, I think I see just the opposite.
I did see something that I think proves that the panels have a backside that is as reflective as the front side. The shadows from the panels on the table indicate to me that there are two light sources separated by a foot or so. In one shot a soldier sets a panel down on the table. The light reflecting off the table, onto the back of the panel and then back onto the table can be seen if you look closely. There must be a shinny surface that reflects the light from the surface of the table back down to the surface of the table. This
reflecting surface must be located on the underside of the panel.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The panels with indentations for six fingered hands are the most obvious link to the dissection footage and its six- fingered creature . While the dissection shows how the bodies are put together; the debris shows the workings of the entity's mind.
I am impressed by the reflectivity of all the debris and the panels. Why would they make something so reflective? I see two initial options to explain this reflectivity. The first is that the debris material naturally happened to have a high reflectivity. The second option would be that they wanted the debris to be very reflective, so they picked a highly reflective material to make the debris.
Lets think about the second option. The creature has very large eyes and pink skin and very dark contact lenses. I am assuming that these contacts are sun glasses for a world that is brighter than its home environment. These details indicate that this creature came from somewhere with less light than our planet. What requirements might a low light environment place on a technologically advancing species? By looking closely at the panels we find that there are twenty raised buttons per hand or forty raised buttons per panel. When the hands are
placed in the hand positions of the panels, there are then fourteen raised buttons in constant contact with each hand. The raised buttons are situated so that eight buttons touch the base of the fingers and the palm of the hand only. These buttons are not there to be pushed because they are situated in the palms and at the base of the fingers. If they are not there to be pushed by the hand then they must be there to push against the hand.
When we look at the I-beams we see raised symbols and keyed type detail such as the raised hemispherical ridge that runs along the middle of one of the flange faces. These details tell me that the creatures are very tactile and use a form of Braille. The panels are not only keyboards, but also appear to be a tactile interface.
A human hand is fairly sensitive and can feel something as small as .001 of and inch (.0025cm). I would guess that the creatures' hands were less sensitive than human hands. I base this opinion on the size of the panel buttons and on the size of the raised symbols on the I-beams. Compared to Braille these features appear very course.
The debris footage looks as if it were shot in a tent. The tent is seen to bellow in and out. The tent pole with the gas mask hanging from it moves when the walls of the tent move. This detail would indicate the tent was setup outside and not on a sound stage.
The soldier holding the debris for the cameraman has large sweat stains around his armpits. This would tie in with the cameraman's story that states that the film was shot in the desert in the month of June.
The panels are about 1 1/2" thick, are 25" wide at the top of the panel and 20" wide at the bottom of the panel. The panels appear to be really light. My guess is that they weight less than 2 pounds. The panels have six sides. The sides are perpendicular to the top and bottom faces. The edges where the sides meet the top and bottom faces of the panels have a 3/16" quarter round radius on the edges.
The panels are curved (arced) slightly in an ergonomic manner and have a skin or what might be called a shell that appears to be about 3/16" thick. This can be seen in the edge view of the broken panel. The skin of the panels appears to have a shinny metallic crystalline composition. It appears crystalline from the jagged way the panel broke.
The panels are not identical. There are (6) fingered hand indentations in the panels Hands Face. These panel indentations appear to be cast. They are not stamped because the wrist area indentation protrudes down into the bottom side. They are not milled because from the side view
of the broken panel the skin appears to be a uniform thickness. I would guess that the panels are custom fitted to the individual who was to use that particular panel. The left and right hands are not the same size in a given panel. It appears that the left hand has longer fingers and a longer palm indentation than the right hand in the same panel. It appears that the left hand in the other panel also has the left hand longer than the right hand. You can also look at how close
the top indentation comes to the top side of the panels. In at least two of the panels this top row left indentation is closer to the top side of the panel than the top row of the right side indentation.
The left and right hands are not symmetrical in layout of the buttons for the hands. There are four raised buttons on the panels in the palms of the hands. One button is located where the heel of human hand would be. One button is located in the center of the palm in line with the outside base of the thumb. Two buttons are in a row straddling the center of the palm and in line with the inside base of the thumb. This layout appears to be the same from hand to hand and from panel to panel. There are four raised buttons just below the point where the base of the fingers meets with the palm of the hand
and there are five raised buttons, one at the tip of each of the five fingers. There appears to be different numbers of buttons in the first row arc indentation just above the finger tip indentations. I count five buttons on one in the right hand and six buttons on the left hand in one of the panels. In another panel I count six buttons in the top row on the right hand and three buttons in the top row of the left hand.
The debris materials look manufactured because they have a radius at the ends of the flanges, machine produced raised symbols, fracture lines and highly uniform reflectivity. What these small details argue for is a unique material with special properties. The material appears to melt, but it does not appear to be burnt. I do not see any oxidation on the melted material. When the material breaks, it does not bend or shatter. I do not see anything that is bent. I see only fractures along a jagged line. One puddle of material has the
same reflectivity as the unmelted material. How do I know? The
reflection of a man's face can be seen in this puddle.
Conclusion
The "Santilli Footage" consists of three different films that include the debris footage, the tent footage and the dissection of the creature. Every detail that is put in a hoaxed film costs money and increases the risk of exposure as a fraud. If this film were a hoax, there would be as little detail as possible. There is enough detail in the debris footage to convince me that it would be expensive to
produce. If this film is a hoax, it is well researched, elaborately scripted and therefore, an expensive undertaking.
by Neil Morris