Disciples are a relic of the past afaict. Even Jesus only managed to wrangle a few in the grand scheme, and that was before we learned that Nothing is Real and Life is Fundamentally Meaningless. Our consciousness is only a product of neural networks, so what is there to worship? Epistemically we will never know. We can only hint at dark shadows in the corners of the corridors of time and claim them as our own as we descend into madness and feeble eccentricity. The Truth may be Out There but no one wants to know and those that do are accused of Intellectual Dishonesty or assailed on grounds of Baldness (speaking as a dispassionate observer haha (I’m Liberal to be clear)).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916895&forum_id=2#50218919)

Glenn Dennis, the mortician, described inquiries from the Army about child-sized caskets and subsequently relayed a nurse's account of the autopsies.

Walter Haut, the actual public information officer who issued the original press release, stated in his sealed affidavit that he saw bodies under a tarp in Hangar 84.

Gerald Anderson claimed to have seen the occupants at the Plains of San Agustin.

Sergeant Melvin Brown allegedly described seeing the bodies to his family.

These are separate accounts, with different degrees of proximity to the events. This is fact, not opinion imo.

And yes, the 1995 Alien Autopsy footage is real. I know a thing or two about Film, and a lot about practical effects from my days in the Industry.

People who have never worked with a two-part Ultracal negative, a foam-latex appliance, or a properly registered 16mm film gate will tell you that it's obviously a dummy. No explanation of the alleged fabrication, just "latex." As though you can slush-cast an entire humanoid, establish credible subcutaneous compliance, eliminate every flashing line at the mold parting surfaces, and achieve realistic tissue separation under a surgical instrument by putting a bunch of fuckin’ gelatin inside a Halloween decoration.

A silicone skin over a urethane foam core produces an entirely different mechanical response from foam latex, particularly under compression and tangential shear imo. You have to consider the durometer, the thickness of the encapsulating membrane, the elastic recovery, and whether the simulated dermis rolls back convincingly when incised. Then you've got the problem of the interior. A bladder of methylcellulose and theatrical blood is not going to reproduce the heterogeneous viscosity of actual viscera. You need independent organ appliances, correctly seated within a cavity, with enough freedom of movement to respond naturally to extraction.

And that's before you've even photographed the fuckin’ thing.

The 16mm image introduces its own problems. You're dealing with gate weave, registration instability, silver-halide grain distribution, shutter-induced motion smear, and the generational losses introduced during optical duplication and telecine transfer. You can't simply point to a soft image and say the softness conceals an appliance. The resolving power of the negative, the contrast transfer of the lens, and the spectral response under tungsten illumination all determine which surface artifacts survive the transfer.

People don't understand any of this.

John Humphreys subsequently claimed to have sculpted the creature using an aluminum armature, clay, and a latex casting process, filling it with animal organs. He also claimed to have played the surgeon. That's a remarkable amount of practical-effects expertise to bring to an alleged hoax. The man plainly knows his way around a mold. But I've seen the footage. I've seen enough practical work to understand the difference between a cast surface, a mechanically articulated appliance, and organic tissue. I've studied the techniques. The Stan Winston school of creature fabrication, Dick Smith's layered prosthetics, the limitations of bladder effects, the way specular highlights behave on glycerin-coated latex. And I am telling you there is considerably more going on here than the average Redditor appreciates.

Whether or not the government recovered an extraterrestrial spacecraft at Roswell is one question. Whether a British special-effects crew successfully fabricated the most convincing pathological specimen ever photographed on 16mm is another.

The latter would itself be one of the great accomplishments in the history of practical effects imho. I am not stating this as fact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916895&forum_id=2#50219805)