Yes, because they don’t look exactly the same doesn’t mean they are.  Lighting, background, camera angle, etc will all play a part in the picture.

The lenght of the eye socket, of the skull, the colors, I see differences that can’t be explained by camera angle or lightning. 

there’s nothing wrong with A.F. Hilal’s demeanor in front of the camera ?
Is there something right with it? Could you elaborate on this?

In a different way, his on-camera testimony is as unconvincing as Baturin’s own.

While the official story does seem to be a bit garbled that is not enough to make me think it’s an alien.

I do not make the claim that it was an alien. I didn’t write that anywhere. The figurine hypothesis is still first.  My claim is that the police investigation failed to demonstrate that it was a figurine and left the questions of origin & nature unanswered.

This is backwoods Russia.

Could you elaborate on this?

JimmyDanton - 04 June 2011 12:29 AM

Yes, because they don’t look exactly the same doesn’t mean they are.  Lighting, background, camera angle, etc will all play a part in the picture.

The lenght of the eye socket, of the skull, the colors, I see differences that can’t be explained by camera angle or lightning.

The skull structure is the same in both, just viewed from different angles.

There are some changes in the way marks on the surface of the skin match up with the underlying whatever beneath the skin, but that’s only to be expected from the thing being in a different position.

As for colour, that could be because of all sorts of things.  Different lights.  Different cameras.  Different software.  The temperature at which the thing was kept.  Preservatives.  Bacteria.

Don’t you think that if somebody was to go through enough effort of exactly copying individual small spots on the skin, that they’d also have bothered to try matching the skin colours?

*** EDIT:  Oh, this might also explain the colour difference, where it says “[url=http://rt.com/news/dead-alien-siberia-body/]They went to his house and asked him about the infant

If it was originally painted, then the paint might have come off.

Paint falls off in flakes after it has dried.  The object on the photo is quite wet. If it is the one in the snow, it would not have been at room temperature for more than a few hours.

... that they’d also have bothered to try matching the skin colours?

I know I couldn’t replicate the meticulous paint job shown on the little (2 feet) object on the snow unless I’d be willing to spend an enormous amount of time.

And there is no possibility that the two people originally suspected were in on the stunt or willing to take credit for it at first?

And the police didn’t notice that neither looked like the guy seen at the beginning of the vid ?
Ok, that can be explained on police incompetence.

It certainly looks pretty dried out in the pics, even the pics taken in the snow.

The object seems unevenly dried out.  From most at the head to much less at the stomach/legs.  That would be consistent with it having been unevenly covered/protected by snow over a period of time.

When I drain the colors out of the object in the snow I get something very similar to the one in the box. I haven’t been able to similarly match the object in the pic with the other two using filters,hue or saturation.

The object/hook at the end of the stump goes from black to blue to black.
There’s no red whatsoever visible at the end of the stick seen on the snow-video
Damn those russian policemen.

The second pic looks like the original figure, only ‘washed out’ by flash and/or a lousy camera.  The first pic was taken with a pretty high (8-10) mega-pixel camera.  The second pic looks more like a 2-4 megapixel.  The snow in the background would have made taking the original picture possible without a flash.  (Personal experience) The second pic was probably taken inside of a dimmer residence or building, thereby requiring a flash. (Or producing a VERY dark and indistinct photo without it.)

As for the ‘cover-up’ or ‘inept’ investigation, I can chalk all of that up to rural cops with little interest into what they believe (or know) to be a hoax.  When the papers picked it up (and/or their superiors) they ‘went through the motions’, but always with their original belief that it wasn’t worth investigating.

I think that the photos in the snow were actually from the video taken with a cell-phone?

JimmyDanton - 04 June 2011 08:36 PM

Paint falls off in flakes after it has dried.

Not always.  That depends on the type of paint, what it was mixed in, and so on.  It could flake off, or peel off, or rub off, or wash off.

The object on the photo is quite wet.

Is it?  Or is it just glossy?

JimmyDanton - 04 June 2011 09:34 PM

... that they’d also have bothered to try matching the skin colours?

I know I couldn’t replicate the meticulous paint job shown on the little (2 feet) object on the snow unless I’d be willing to spend an enormous amount of time.

That’s my point.  To copy it as much as they did would already have required an enormous amount of time and attention to detail.  To then supposedly not only forget to match the colours up, but to supposedly make the colours so glaringly dissimilar, makes no sense at all. . .unless that’s simply the way that the actual thing looked after having been confiscated by the police and examined.

daveprime - 05 June 2011 03:50 AM

The second pic looks like the original figure, only ‘washed out’ by flash and/or a lousy camera.  The first pic was taken with a pretty high (8-10) mega-pixel camera.  The second pic looks more like a 2-4 megapixel.  The snow in the background would have made taking the original picture possible without a flash.  (Personal experience) The second pic was probably taken inside of a dimmer residence or building, thereby requiring a flash. (Or producing a VERY dark and indistinct photo without it.)

Interesting, I’ll look into that.  I’m getting some real good feedbacks on this.  I appreciate.

But that couldn’t make a black hook, as seen on the video of the artifact in a box, also turn out blue, could it ?  Police shenanigans.

An odd choice btw from the alleged figurine maker to complete his creation with a mundane hook, unless he wanted to create the first alien pirate.  But he sure was proud of his work.  “I’m ready for my close-up, mr. Baturin.”

Accipiter - 05 June 2011 01:11 PM

I think that the photos in the snow were actually from the video taken with a cell-phone?

I read that somewhere but it’s impossible to confirm like many other things in this story.

The object on the photo is quite wet.

Is it?  Or is it just glossy?

The cloth underneath the thing is damp in a few places. The chicken skin seems fresh.

With respect to the colour difference between the video and still image in the box:

As any photographer can tell you, colour management is one of the trickiest parts of photography (one of the reasons why professional studio photographers use greycards etc.). Reproducing exact colours involves controlling the white balance: most people don’t bother with this unless they are very seriously into photography. I doubt wether someone using a camera-phone will bother (or even have the skills to understand it).

Even with the same camera, different lighting conditions will result in profound colour differences, especially when the white balance is set on “automatic”. With different types of camera’s, it is even worse. And then, there is the matter of after-editing, and different camera settings for saturation, contrast etc. Put different sources of light (daylight versus a flash versus artificial lamp light) into the equation, and it becomes even more variable. The same object photographed in daylight or under a desklight definitely will come out with different colour on the photographs.

So I would not see anything significant in the colour differences. Shape and spotmarks are however, as Acci accutely observed, very similar, and that is of importance here. Not the colour (which can also change because of putrifaction of the chicken skin, and dehydration/rehydration of the chicken skin).

There is no doubt in my mind that the photo’s of the specimen being prepared, and the photo’s in the snow, show the same object.

JimmyDanton - 06 June 2011 10:37 PM

But that couldn’t make a black hook, as seen on the video of the artifact in a box, also turn out blue, could it ?

That can easily be the result of differences in artificial versus daylight illumination, camera colour balance and contrast settings. I would not put any significance in it at all.