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: moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 10:34:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 16:08:57 -0500
Subject: 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

Previously, I had written:

>>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.

Gildas replied:

>Interesting arguments, but I find them hardly credible.

Okay, Gildas. Why do you find them hardly credible? But before
you answer, why don't you check out my response to Steve
Kaeser's post on this same thread. It might fill in some of the
blanks for you.

Moving on, Gildas offered:

>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.

Gildas, you really need to check out a few low budget horror
films if you think this stuff is sophisticated. "Blood on the
cuts" is the easiest stage trick around. Mickey-mouse stuff, all
of it.

>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.

Please re-read my post. I said that I doubted a professional
cameraman shot a single frame of the AA footage.

>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.

Of course the AA film was purposely lousy!

It was designed to fit the general public's misperception of
what archival footage from that era should look like. One of my
fundamental problems with the footage is that it's TOO lousy for
such a momentous event!

Continuing, I had written:

>>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,

Gildas responded:

>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.

The "containment" suits are a joke, used only to hide any
evidence of the actors's identities. For instance, you'll notice
that the suits are not air tight; there's no air hoses or any
life support going to them. Nothing was achieved through the use
of those suits that a simple surgical gown and mask could not
have done more comfortably. In addition, this was supposedly all
very "hurry, hurry" and at the last minute stuff. What? They
just HAPPENED to have these surgical "containment" suits around
but couldn't manage something as simple as additional lights to
allow for better focus? Silly.

>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.

Unless they were part of a profit sharing program. The same
"doctors" seen in the AA footage may be the extent of the
overall team. Considering the money to be made, why "screw the

>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.

Gildas, when I write a check at the grocery store, the cashier
always looks at the name, address and phone info printed and

"Is everything on your check correct?"

What does this person expect me to say?

"No, you got me. The check's stolen and I was gonna try and slip
something by you. But you're too fast for me; you caught me!"

Do you think Santilli is going to act any differently? Playing
"dumb" is probably the easiest thing Santilli has to do in
association with this whole extravaganza.

He'll never admit anything when there's money to be made.


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