LOL Not Real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_autopsy
Not real, by admission of the ORIGINAL AUTHOR!
well the film alien autopsy explained that
Recently Viewedshare
High School Musical 2:7/10
Knocked Up :10/10
MovieChat Forums > Alien Autopsy: (Fact or Fiction?) (1995) Discussion > LOL Not Real
Government Coverup?
shareThe man's an *beep* He made his money off it, then comes out and says it's a reconstuction of footage he once saw. just another damn hoaxer.
And what's with all the special effects wizards saying they couldn't have done it? Were they in on the hoax too?
-------------------
"I've never seen a sight, that didn't look better lookin' back".
The fact that this film is totally bogus is what makes it so damn funny. I thought the whole alien autopsy sequence was hilarious!
Chirpy tastes like chicken.
Despite all of the people putting this film down as a hoax, they still haven't been able to explain how the autopsy footage was physically on celluloid examined and *VERIFIED* by Kodak technicians as being 50 years old and developed in 1947. The documentary shows very clearly the code symbols on the leader of the film (a circle and a triangle) that Kodak used back then to indicate the year the film was developed. Sure, you could put those symbols on a fake film (if you were even aware that Kodak did that back then), but you would be putting them on NEW celluloid. Even if unexposed movie film from that era was still around and available for exposure, it would still not be usable due to deterioration of the chemicals over time. The fact that the autopsy was physically on 50 year-old celluloid, and developed back then, is pretty convincing for me.
shareI also have some swamplands territories for sale. They are actually off the coast of Florida but ripe for development, for a few hundred thousand dollars they are yours.
shareI can explain it. It's simple, really. You see, when the people who made the documentary said the film was verified by Kodak technicians, that was what is known as a "lie". Kodak never performed any such examination of the film; the people making the documentary simply made that up in order to seem more convincing.
share[deleted]