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: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:59:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:33:38 -0500
Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 18:34:11 EST
>Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 22:22:48 -0500
>Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

>>From: moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com
>>Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 10:34:38 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

Previously, I had written this regarding Santilli's "lack of
knowledge" about Roswell and the AA footage:

>>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.

Gildas responds:

>Apparently, you have an answer to everything.

My reply:

The whole purpose of debate is to arrive at answers to
complicated issues. Granted, my answers are speculative in
nature. Unfortunately, Santilli puts us the arena of speculation
and holds us hostage there by his refusal to cooperate with a
real AA investigation. Do I have a all the answers? How could I?
How could anyone? This is just my opinion based on something
that I do for a living; producing and directing entertainment.
And lets make no mistake here; AA is nothing but entertainment
at this point. Santilli, himself, prevents it from entering the
realm of science.

>However, I still fail to understand how a little music producer,
>who knew nothing about the Roswell case, and was not interested
>in UFOs in general, ponders one day : What about producing a UFO
>hoax ? Now suppose that, however crazy it seems to be, he
>launches into this risky project. If I were in that position, I
>would at least gather some information on the story, in order to
>avoid too obvious mistakes. But, no, he has not done that,
>apparently. The makes a body very different from the
>descriptions of Roswell witnesses (fat belly, muscular, six
>fingers...). And the story of the cameraman does not fit either.


You say:

>[Santilli] knew nothing about the Roswell case...

as if it's a proven fact. There is no proof for this at all;
only his word. So, if Santilli's word that he knew nothing about
Roswell is good enough to pass as truth, then why don't you
believe his word that the AA film is real? Each position has the
same lack of proof to support it.

I truly mean no disrespect, but it would seem to me that you are
being conveniently selective about which of his statements you
hold to be true. Personally, I don't think one can base a theory
on the notion that "sometimes he tells the truth" when we have
no proof, or even supporting evidence, that he has EVER told the
truth regarding AA.

I say this because Santilli has yet to come up with anything to
support his dubious claims, even if it would help his position.
In fact, he has actually done just the opposite. He won't
release the original film for inspection and he won't let the
cameraman talk to anyone directly. Does this sound like the type
of person that is anxious to be vindicated within the UFO

Finally, you wrote:

>Sometime, the wind is going to blow and , as we
>say in French: "Ca va d=E9coiffer".

Agreed. Unfortunately, we've been down-wind from Santilli for
too long. <G>

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