UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 10

Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

From: Steven W. Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:52:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:30:48 -0500
Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 09:52:18 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction


I wanted to offer a couple of quick replies, but we're rehashing
material that has taken up many gigabytes of bandwidth over the
past four years. This story just isn't worth it.


>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!

A number of estimates regarding the production cost of producing
the Santilli "film" were posted by "experts" in special effects.
I put that in quotes because one often doesn't know who the
other person is making the statement, and at some point you have
to either accept their comments or reject them.  Estimates
ranged up to six figures, and down to about $50K. Yes, I am
aware of small budget productions.

My point is that this is not a simple production that was cooked
up by a couple of teenagers in a garage (which I know is not the
point you were trying to make).  If it was a production, which
appears to be the case, then it was well thought out.  It took
real money to produce, and not pocket change, which means that
one should be able to follow a paper trail (if one could find


>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.

Actually, that was all discussed at length as well.  It turns
out that scapels are held differently in different parts of the
world, so there isn't a single methodology.  It also turns out
that scalpels aren't necessary held in the same way by
pathologists and surgeons, which is another complication.  Then
there's the fact that we're allegedly looking at a procedure
that took place 50 years ago, and both equipment and
methodologies have changed since then.  This was, after all, an
alleged dissection, not an operation.

You raise good reasons to be skeptical of the Santilli "film",
but I see no proof here.   There is no reason for the Santilli
"film" to be given any additional publicity or discussion unless
there is something new to add to the mix.


[ 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