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: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 09:52:18 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 16:06:21 -0500
Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

>From: Steven W. Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 06:39:19 -0500
>Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 00:27:02 -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

Previously, I had offered:

>>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

Steve replied:

>If your friends could produce a better AA "film" for $10,000,
>they should have spoken up when this was being discussed on the


Hi Steve,

I never said that a better AA film could be produced for
$10,000. I said that a better ALIEN could be produced for
$10,000. My post above got snipped prematurely, though I'm sure
you didn't do it on purpose. If it had continued, I said that
Santilli probably spent no more than $20,000 on the AA footage
altogether and that it would be peanuts at double that price

It is understandable that many would think the moviemaking
process is expensive; it can be with big name stars and the
like. But the fact is that I've directed low budget features
running 90 to 120 minutes for prices ranging from $50,000 to
$120,000. Incidently, the one for $120,000 dollars was a poorly
scripted Horror film called "Forever Evil" (United
Entertainment/VCI Home Video). It starred absolutely no one
famous; all unknowns. It has played on the USA network at least
twice that I know of and, last I checked, had grossed over 2
million dollars. Therefore, if decent production values can be
maintained on a 120 minute film at $120,000, then it stands to
reason having $20,000 to $40,000 to produce only a few minutes
of crap like the AA footage would be a windfall, even if
Santilli had to hire someone to produce it for him. Believe me,
Santilli had every reason to believe that he'd make serious
money off his little hoax. Come to think of it, if everyone
involved was in a profit sharing arraingement, they'd have
plenty of good reasons to keep their mouhts shut!

Moving on, Steve wrote:

>On the other hand, I've communicated with >several in the
medical profession who are convinced they were >watching a real
medical proceedure, and not a re-creation.  So, >what are we
left with?   It would seem we have opinions from >experts in
their fields who view the same "film" from their >respective

This is understandable since we are, after all, dealing with the
world of make believe. If you watch the movie "The Competition"
with Richard Dreyfus and Amy Irving, there are shots of them
playing piano where the camera pans down in one continuous
motion from their faces to their hands; also wider full body
shots, as well. I have many friends that are professional
keyboard players and they were absolutely convinced that the two
actors had classical piano training and were really playing the
pianos without missing a note. If you check out the footage I
speak of, it is really quite startling. Of course, the truth is
that they were playing musical giberish in beat with the real
sound track's score.

This is not to say that they had no training or preparation for
the roles; they had a lot. But they simply were not capable of
performing the intricate finger work necessary to actually play
the music. None the less, the final effect is totally
convincing. This information is based on interviews and behind
the scenes footage produced in conjuction with the movie.

Like wise, having spent years in the operating room as a medical
illustrator, I can tell you that the difference between a
surgical move that is correct and one that isn't is merely
millimeters in difference, and that's on a living person where
it REALLY counts! It would not be visible to the naked eye of an
observer in O.R. and certainly would not be apparent on the
crummy AA footage. Granted, just like the piano footage above,
the overall hand positions and movements might ring true; that's
easy, any person could do it. But what the fingers do on a micro
level is what really counts and there's no way to make that
distinction, even on well produced operating room documentation.
Consult your medical friends again, I'm sure they'll agree.

Continuing, Steve wrote:

>I have seen three "professional" re-creations of the AA "film",
>and I believe that at least one of them cost far more than the
>$10,000 figure you mention.


>But to
>charactorize it as easy to create, for just a few thousand
>dollars, misses the point of many "expert" statements that have
>gone before.

I don't believe that $20,000 to $40,000 dollars is quite the
same as "just a few thousand dollars", Steve. Please re-read my
post concerning my projected costs. As far as the other
"experts" are concerned, I've only been with this list for about
4 or 5 months. The only other person that I've seen make
technical comments here about the AA footage is Bob Shell and he
and I disagree on just about everything. Can you direct me to
others? I'd like to review what they had to say, as well.

>It is Ray Santilli's responsibility to prove his film has
>worth, and not the role of UFOlogists to prove it a fake.

Agreed. But he won't.

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