Has this Alien picture ever been debunked?

The first set....





I haven't heard a debunking before. They might just be rubber. As for one of the posts above saying its 'realistic', that is a misguided statement. How do you know what a real alien looks like? It's skin texture? How shiny the eyes are? bone structure? muscle position? I don't agree with it being "realistic" because I don't know what real aliens look like.

The second pic....



This I have seen before. It was part of a short cg video. I'll look for it and post it if/when I find it.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
How about instead of "debunking" the picture, someone work at proving what it is, one way or another.

That could be hard to do since Robert Dean is the guy to talk to about this photo, and according to this site, he has retired from the public and doesn't personally respond to any emails or letters.

Note from webmaster: Mr. Dean is retired from the public. He does not use computers or email but messages may be left for him at [email protected], put "for Bob Dean" in the header. Personal responses are not possible and requests to go to websites and links will not be accommodated. We also do not supply additional information or copies of his materials. Thank you for understanding.

There are at least a couple of places this photo has been published, such as the documentary "U.F.Os: 50 Years of Denial", and the stargate newsletter, but I doubt they know anymore than Dean does about it, since I'm pretty sure that they got it from him.

(It's also interesting to note that the stargate newsletter states that Dean got the photo from a researcher, not a policeman. I'm not sure if that was an error on their part or not.)

I think our best bet right now is for Robert Dean to come out of his retirement, unless somebody knows of some other sources we could get a hold of to learn more.

reply to post by Sliick


It looks realistic because it looks organic not rubber.

reply to post by Armour For Victor


Im sorry I remembered it wrong I corrected it now. Section was the term, not quadrant. I believe it is the same place as what we now refer to as area 51.

Ya you really got real one, I know for fact. I got this one that is really interesting too, feel free to have a look.

img13.imageshack.us...

Sabine Mondestin, the woman in the picture is popular on the net for some freaky Voodoo stuff but something unexpected came out of this picture.

Alien or demon who knows!!!

Yes, that picture was debunked long ago.

Unfortunately I don't have any links to it being debunked....

... So it will have to be debunked again.

And so goes the cycle.

The thing that gets me about the picture is that it appears to have mammaries. Depending on how you believe humans evolved this could be a non-issue, but to me that is a deal breaker.

reply to post by LiquidLight

I cannot see any mammaries.
Can you point out the mammaries?

Originally posted by DaMod
I've seen that before. Most believable alien photo imo. Considering when it would have been taken would have been hard to fake something that realistic. Great Pic. Even though this one is my favorite.



Don't know if that one has been debunked either but it sure is cool.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by DaMod]

There's no way of knowing when the picture was actually taken/made.

I think the photograph may be real but the problem I have with the alien portrayed is the physiologically impossible head/neck ratio. The neck is impossibly thin for such a large head. How would it even turn its head? There seem to be no muscles in the neck that would stop it from just snapping. The acceleration of a UFO would also have heads rolling.

For this reason I have to say FAKE.

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
I think the photograph may be real but the problem I have with the alien portrayed is the physiologically impossible head/neck ratio. The neck is impossibly thin for such a large head. How would it even turn its head? There seem to be no muscles in the neck that would stop it from just snapping. The acceleration of a UFO would also have heads rolling.

For this reason I have to say FAKE.

In some African and Asian cultures, neck rings are worn to stretch the neck:



When the rings are removed, the neck is stretched, but there have been no ill effects observed. This is the same woman as in the pic above with her rings removed:



This woman was young -- 26 years old -- at the time of the picture. I have seen shows on the Discovery Channel of older women with longer necks who have their rings removed with no problems.

I guess my point is that if a woman with a neck of over a foot long can support her head, then nature can evolve a creature similarly.

reply to post by LiquidLight


That is a good point but my contention with this photograph is the thinness and not the length of the neck and the size of the head. These women have heads/neck width ratio that allows the head to be supported by the neck. The muscle is there to do that, no matter what the length is. The vertebrae have been forcibly grown to allow for this length. A giraffe naturally has the same number of vertebrae in the neck as any other mammal but they are just bigger/longer.

The head of the alien is just too large to support it in my view. I have seen other photographs, supposedly of aliens, who have necks that are more load bearing, if you will. There is just not the muscle there to support it and that is the reason why I doubt that this particular photograph is real.

Originally posted by LiquidLight

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
I think the photograph may be real but the problem I have with the alien portrayed is the physiologically impossible head/neck ratio. The neck is impossibly thin for such a large head. How would it even turn its head? There seem to be no muscles in the neck that would stop it from just snapping. The acceleration of a UFO would also have heads rolling.

For this reason I have to say FAKE.

In some African and Asian cultures, neck rings are worn to stretch the neck:

When the rings are removed, the neck is stretched, but there have been no ill effects observed. This is the same woman as in the pic above with her rings removed:

I guess my point is that if a woman with a neck of over a foot long can support her head, then nature can evolve a creature similarly.

Haha. I see yet again, that people resort to skewing reality in order to make a point for aliens.

lol.

Bend your head forward and feel the back of your neck. What is that?

It's a vertebrae.

That is all. I'll let you think about it.

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
I think the photograph may be real but the problem I have with the alien portrayed is the physiologically impossible head/neck ratio. The neck is impossibly thin for such a large head. How would it even turn its head? There seem to be no muscles in the neck that would stop it from just snapping.

We don't know how heavy their heads are either, if their head was as light as a balloon then the neck wouldn't have any problem keeping the head up.
Perhaps their neck even extends further upward at the back of their head.

reply to post by logician magician


So you're assuming that the alien has no vertebrae? I disagree; there is plenty of room in the neck for vertebrae and muscles to support the neck. In fact, with a rigid enough Vertebrae and good supporting muscles, I see no problem with that head being supported by that neck. We mustn't assume that because we have relatively weak vertebrae that the aliens have the same. In fact, it's possible that their bones/muscles were genetically engineered to withstand forces of many G's and that it's just not necessary to have that much of it.

reply to post by Cydonia2012


It appears fake to me personally.

Looks too comical, too doll-like.

The main reason ufology is looked down upon and has been the center of ridicule for so many years is because of hoaxes like that, frauds in the field, sensationalists............

Jacque Vallee probably summed it up well in my opinion when he described the massive interconnected group of con-artists and whackos. He believes this is the reason the UFO subject is ridiculed. I share his opinion. We should've got passed pictures like that long ago.

reply to post by GateCrasher


Well, there isn't anything that comes out right and says that it's fake. We can look at it and find clues that may make our minds up one way or another, but, in the end, no one knows what an alien looks like, except maybe the few who have had close encounters with them. We can't take their word for it, either, because there is no reliable way of telling if they were lying about the experience, or perhaps dreaming it.

Until aliens become an everyday reality for most people, this will be one of those things that's impossible to prove.

Originally posted by LiquidLight
reply to post by GateCrasher

 

Well, there isn't anything that comes out right and says that it's fake. We can look at it and find clues that may make our minds up one way or another, but, in the end, no one knows what an alien looks like, except maybe the few who have had close encounters with them. We can't take their word for it, either, because there is no reliable way of telling if they were lying about the experience, or perhaps dreaming it.

Until aliens become an everyday reality for most people, this will be one of those things that's impossible to prove.

Oh don't get me wrong. I absolutely do believe that ETs exist and that we have been visited. This subject is of most interest to me, there's nothing more intriguing than -aliens & ufos-. There is a definitely a cover up in my opinion.

But I sincerely doubt that there is a real picture of an alien currently available on the net or elsewhere. Last related thing I saw was the Jonathan Reed hoax, and his footage of a "near-dead" alien, and how he supposedly put the creature in a freezer, then recorded it with "audio-only"... I mean please c'mon.... We really need to get passed these things in ufology.

James Fox is the man of the moment in my opinion. I can't wait to see his new doc "I Know What I Saw", it should turn out great I'm certain.

reply to post by LiquidLight

I'm still curious about the mammaries you mentioned.
I cannot see any mammaries.
Can you point out the mammaries?

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by LiquidLight

 

I'm still curious about the mammaries you mentioned.
I cannot see any mammaries.
Can you point out the mammaries?

The bulges under its shirt appear, to me at least, to be breasts or pectorals.