My post directly above yours corrects that I did have the frame sequence and looked it over.
Darn, it looks like you posted that while I was still writing my post. Oh well. I guess I'd better combine this with another post I was planning in order to save space.
While going through some videos made by the
company responsible for that King Kong-inspired birthday party that I used to discuss how camera distance can hide seams, I noticed that they had done a
video inspired by the "Alien Autopsy." Although the slightly gory video was done as a tongue-in-cheek promotion of their Alien Autopsy party package, the fact that they almost nailed the look of the alien inspired me to look up more on the matter in order to see if any other recreation-type deals had been done. What I found might be of use in discussing the P/G footage, so I decided to post about it here.
First, I went to
this site, which I had only briefly looked at in the past.
This page notes the occasional use of non-disclosure agreements in projects involving those in the special effects industry.
This page not only gives Stan Winston's real opinion of the film (footage of him was apparently edited to make it seem as if he didn't think the footage was a hoax; it also seems that he might've been under the impression that the film was actually from the 40's when he first looked at it). I should note that it also gives the URL for Mr. Winston's website.
This page notes various signs in the film that point to it being a hoax and makes some notes about "hot frames" (which may or may not be of use in discussion of the P/G film). Finally,
this page lists several alien autopsy "recreations." I suspect that the reason so many of the "recreations" don't look exactly like the subject of the Alien Autopsy film is due to fears of copyright infringement lawsuits. I remember back around the time the film had first been shown on TV, an episode of the show "Sightings" played some footage and noted that, if the footage really was authentic, then it being filmed by the government in the 40's would've made it automatically public domain and therefore they weren't paying for use of the footage. It wouldn't surprise me if they were bluffing, but it still amuses me to this day.
Some of you might remember how the man behind the footage (Ray Santilli) and
the man who created the alien confessed in 2006. But, as you can see in
this interview, the confession seems to have been done solely to promote a movie inspired by the hoax. Also, the "Okay, the film you saw was faked, but it was based on a real film that got mostly destroyed" is lauaghable (and, as Dfoot noted, strikingly similar to the story Frank Hansen gave about his Minnesota Iceman exhibit). I think that the various goofs highlighted by Trudang.com negate any claim that what little remained of the so-called original film was present in "Alien Autopsy." Well, that, and the fact that nobody can say for sure which frames are the "real" ones.
Similarly, there's
the case of how an obscure indie movie called "UFO Abduction" was passed off as footage of a real alien abduction (without the creator's knowledge). If you watch
this news report featuring clips from the film, you'll see people who really should know better arguing that some obviously fake footage is real.
...showing that a human head (in correct proportion to the body)...would barely, if at all, fit into the space available inside Patty's supposed suit.
