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 <email@example.com> >Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 17:34:50 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >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, >too. 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp