Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Here

From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 97 10:24:04 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:32:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Bodies recovered at Roswell: alien fakes?

>Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:48:04 -0600 (CST)
>From: MAC TONNIES <0212104@ACAD.NWMISSOURI.EDU>
>To: updates@globalserve.NET
>Subject: Bodies recovered at Roswell: alien fakes?

>Dear UpDate readers,

>In Whitley Strieber's "Breakthrough," he includes some testimony >indicating
>that the bodies recovered near Roswell in 1947 were "fakes," and might >never
>have been truly alive (despite being organic).  The inner organs are >described
>as unformed.

>This description reminded me very much of the "raw hamburger" aspect of >the
>cadaver's guts in the controversial "alien autopsy" footage.  Perhaps >the AA
>footage is real and depicts a biological dummy of some sort rather than >one of
>the "real" aliens.  Maybe the body featured in Santilli's film was >designed to

>look like what what the military of the 1940s would think an alien >"should"
>look like. (George Gaylord Simpson's classic paper "The Nonprevalance of
>Humanoids" would not be published for several decades.)

Hi Mac,

Nice to see someone who is really thinking about this.  I speculated back in
1995 that these things might be "biots" or biological robots, based on their
apparently simplified internal structure and the lack of gyri and sulci on the
brain.  Using a mammalian model, a creature with a smooth brain like this could
not be particularly smart.  That is still one possibility of what these beings
are.

However, I also interviewed an active Air Force pathologist who specializes in
crash victims.  He commented that the "mush" in the abdominal cavity is
consistent with the victims of high speed air crashes, where impact damage may
leave the body superficially looking undamaged but can turn some internal organs
into sludge like we see.  The overall undamaged appearance of the body (except
for the wounds) but apparent bruising could be consistent with a high speed
crash with some sort of restraining device, maybe even an advanced airbag type
of thing.
To me one of the most interesting things is that prosthetic device removed from
the heart, which several thoracic surgeons have identified as an artificial
heart valve.  Both bodies have it, and neither one has a scar on the chest from
its implanting.  This implies that these creatures are "manufactured", as also
does the lack of navel.

When we were first getting into space we sent up monkeys and chimps as test
subjects before we sent up the first humans.  We considered them similar enough
to us, but expendable.  If we could have manufactured biological robots, might
these not have been our first choice?

It has been argued that these creatures look "too human" to be ET.  I agree.  I
think their origin is 100% terrestrial.  I suspect that DNA tests have now been
done and have verified that their basic DNA is human, although either
artificially modified by genetic engineering or hybridization.  Where do I think
they came from?  I think they most likely came from the distant future or past,
in other words that they are temponauts not astronauts.

Bob