posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Why is the reviewer so reluctant to tell us what Philip Mantle's conclusions are?Perhaps I should restate this, even though I have not read the book. Is there anyone on this blog, Philip or anyone else, who still believes there is the slightest chance that this film was a genuine autopsy of an ET being?
By cda, at Thursday, December 09, 2010
I'm surprised that the autopsy thing is still being regurgitated.MT
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, December 09, 2010
If I remember right, the original documentary featured pathologist Cyril Wecht who did color commentary on the autopsy footage.
By Frank Stalter, at Thursday, December 09, 2010
And Frank...Cyril Wecht has got to be a gazillion years old. He was rather old during the JFK assassination.He's a good forensic guy though.RR
"I'm surprised that the autopsy thing is still being regurgitated."You and me both. My answer would be "who gives a toss?" This is half the reason why we can't get forward - all some want to do is rehash the past.
By JR, at Thursday, December 09, 2010
JR In my humble opinion it isn't rehashing if it is putting something into its rightful perspective.If it is the correct information, and it can be trusted, then I'm all for it. The importance of the subject warrants it. If it wraps things up, and everyone agrees, then cool...another bit of baggage dumped.
By Bob Koford, at Friday, December 10, 2010
Bob- I fully understand what you're saying, but when was the last time this case was even questioned, or taken seriously? I haven't seen a thread on ATS (where the wild topics roam) on it in ages. It's one of those things - to rehash long dead things like this is to acknowledge it as worthy.
By JR, at Friday, December 10, 2010
"Cyril Wecht has got to be a gazillion years old."The good doctor hasn't lost a step!http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/1238459/cyril_wecht_accuses_d_a_of_abusing_power?wpid=5435"How extensive are their tenterhooks???!!!"Awesome!
By Frank Stalter, at Friday, December 10, 2010
He was also one of the main reasons I did not immediately discount the film, that is, he was convinced by the biological evidence that he saw as being consistant with autopsies, i.e. the far better than simply "blood knife" effect, rather...realistic oozing, etc.
By Bob Koford, at Saturday, December 11, 2010
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile