UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 9

Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:07:21 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 00:47:19 -0500
Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 17:34:50 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

>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.

Interesting arguments, but I find them hardly credible. I keep
thinking that it is a sophisticated fabrication, probably close
to the real thing, but with deliberate mistakes that a first
degree hoaxer would not have done.

I still think that the film was very well made, and must have
cost a lot of time, carefull planning, money, and quite a few
experts around. The body is very impressive, with the blood on
the cuts, etc.

The "mistakes" are also too obvious not to have been introduced
on purpose. For instance, the clumsy camera movements when it
comes to close-ups. I did myself some shooting (more than a
hundred 100 feet reels) with hand held 16 mm camera, and I can
tell you that the first thing to learn is to hold firmly the
camera. If Santilli had hired a cameraman, anyone with some
training would have fared better. Which means that it was
purposely lousy. I see two possible reasons for that. First, to
prevent too close examination of body parts and/or, more subtly,
to lower the credibility of the film, and it worked.

The introduction of six fingers is another one. No Roswell
witness remembers that! The most lamentable Roswell hoaxer would
have known that. One friend argued that, on the contrary, it
makes the hoax more credible, because it surprises everybody,
but I find the argument much too sophisticated for a simple
money making hoax.

>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,

Yes, the fact that all faces are hidden is, of course, very
suspect. But it is just as necessary for the team protection,
wether it is a simple hoax or a more complex operation.

I maintain that it would have been very risky as a simple hoax.
People willing to participate in such an operation are not of a
very scrupulous kind, and therefore present a risk, even years
later. There are many ways to prove a hoax when you have
participated in it, especially  if you have been careful to keep
some proofs of it. There is also the blackmailing risk. Any
participant with such a proof could sink him.

One more detail. I was at the first screening in London on May
5, 1995, with some French friends. One of them, Jean Gresl=E9,
talked with Santilli and he discovered that he was very ignorant
of the Roswell case. One more indication that Santilli, most
probably, was not the producer of the film.

[ 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