UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 8

Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 17:34:50 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 01:30:13 -0500
Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 07:11:41 EST
>Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 06:44:32 -0500
>Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

Previously, Gildas wrote:

>I find very improbable that Ray Santilli, a small
>music producer, would have launched in such a risky and costly
>operation of producing a highly complex hoax by himself. Just
>think of the risk of a member of the production team leaking any
>part of the story, even inadvertantly, any time in the future.
>For instance when talking to a friend, who would repeat it, etc.
>Santilli would soon have several dozens of TV networks suing him
>and would end up in jail for swindling. On the other hand the
>mere fact that he put the film on the market means that he was
>very sure of not being prosecuted.

Hi Gildas,

I think there is a general misconception people have about the
overall "high expense" and "risk" of producing the AA footage.
Nothing visible on screen is so unique that it couldn't be found
in garage sales and resale shops. I know of at least four
surplus places in Houston, alone, that would have all the old
surgical hardware such as table, instruments, gowns etc. If I
had to put a dollar figure on it all, I doubt it would top
$5,000 and that would be generous. The alien, of course, would
have to be manufactured. However, despite much admiration some
people seem to have for the "realistic" look of the alien, I
personally find it to be quite stiff and crude. I know half a
dozen guys in the low budget film industry that could do a
better job for under $10,000 and would take the money and keep
their mouths shut because they would just be happy to have the

Finding the old film stock is not impossible. I, personally,
have stumbled onto old rolls of B&W film dating back to 1958. I
shot them and they processed up just fine, though a little
grainy. Therefore, film and processing is practically free, as
is the old Bell and Howell it was probably shot with. I wouldn't
be surprised if the camera and film were found together in
someone's attic! From the look of it, I doubt very seriously
that a trained camera man shot one single frame, so you know his
cost was doodly-squat.

The actor's faces were conveniently covered, so their "fees"
would be minimal, probably no more than $200 per person, if even
that. Santilli could easily afford to "sweeten" the deal by
doubling or tripling their fees to keep them quiet, though it
really wouldn't be necessary.

In all, I doubt that Santilli spent more than $20,000 dollars.
Peanuts at double that price, especially if he can sell the
video to network television or offer it to the sell-through
market on home video. I'm sure he's spent as much producing a
single music video. I know I have, even for an unknown group
with little or no hope of making it commercially as a result of
the video.

As far as risk is concerned; there really isn't any. Since no
faces are shown, all involved would be sorely lacking in proof
if they tried to "squeal" on Santilli. In fact, should any of
the actors cause him to lose money by making claims that they
can't prove, Santilli could sue THEM and would probably win,

Gilda continued by offering this:

>However, many parts of his
>story, such as the camaraman's story, are not credible. Just to
>mention the claim of having kept highly secret reels and
>developped them himself. The story is preposrerous, and
>therefore Santilli did not get the film the way he says.


I've posted earlier why I find the notion of some guy processing
several hundred feet of film in a bucket and trying to find a
place to hang-dry it really stupid. I know Bob Shell disagrees,
and he has his reasons. But it makes no sense to me at all,
despite the army manuals of the day claiming that it could be
done. A friend of mine has an old army manual about personal
hygiene that tells recruits to clip the corners of their
toe-nails close to the skin "for greater comfort", I believe.
None of them did, of course, because it would always cause
ingrown toe-nails! So, just because the manual says to do it,
doesn't mean that it's the logical thing to do. An experienced
cameraman would produce better looking footage to begin with and
certainly wouldn't risk such important images to bucket
processing! He'd know better.

Of course, the cameraman is Santilli's weakest area. The
cameraman could never be allowed to be interviewed in person, as
Bob Shell found out during his research. All information must
come through Santilli.

How convenient.

As far as Santilli being sure he'd never be prosecuted; for
what? The unseen cameraman is his ultimate "out". Santilli can
always claim that he was "duped", just as he has regarding the
tent footage. Should the networks want to sue, they would have
to PROVE that Santilli knew the film was a hoax; something they
can't and he'll never admit. Besides, if the heat was on, he
could always claim that any sensible person could tell it was a
hoax and that the networks simply didn't care, which they
probably wouldn't. Ratings are ratings. Don't forget, "Three's
Company" was one of the highest rated shows on television for
years even though it was a constant embarrassment for the
network that carried it.

Ka-ching, ka-ching.

Now, a lawyer might want to weigh in on this, but an interesting
way to test Santilli's resolve is for others to start copying
and selling tapes of his AA footage, sans the opening titles or
credits or narrative sections that he or the networks produced.
After all, if the AA footage was produced by the military, then
it was paid for with US tax dollars and now belongs to the
general public, just like early NASA photos. For Santilli to
protect his copyright, (and his profits) he'd have to prove that
he produced the AA footage from scratch!

Ironic, isn't it? All the underpaid talent that worked on the
film probably wouldn't lift a finger to help him.

Finally, Gildas asked:

>So what happened?? I am surprised that the very possible
>hypothesis of a "secret services" operation has been paid so
>little attention, apparently (or am I wrong here?). And yet,
>there are many precedents. If we go back in time, we know that,
>for instance, AFOSI issued doctored documents and informations
>to ufological circles, some of them through William Moore, who
>confessed it. So, why not a film?


>I would be interested to read convincing arguments against this

I think I just presented one! :)

In closing, Gildas mentioned:

>Incidentally, I may have some information to release soon on the
>'KGB Secrets' TV production. Russian ufologist Boris Shurinov,
>to whom I sent the video, has already presented a rather
>devastating analysis of it at a recent conference in Italy
>(Cagliari, in Sardinia, 12 december 1998). He is to send me soon
>a summary of it (he was completing his inquiry)  with his
>authorization to circulate it. Just to give an example,  he
>claims that the uniforms of the soldiers are not correct : they
>wear an officer's belt!

The KGB ufo film? A fake?

Not the 16mm color negative film of a downed saucer that was
produced almost a decade before there was 16mm color negative
film on the market? Not the same 16mm color negative film that,
inexplicably, is kept in 35mm film canisters? (those tricky

A fake? Get out of here and stop kidding around, Gildas...<g>

Take care,

Roger Evans

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com