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 13:08:05 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:35:16 -0500
Subject: 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

Previously, I had written:

>>Santilli probably spent no more than $20,000 on the AA footage
>>altogether and that it would be peanuts at double that price
>>($40,000).

<snip>

>>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!

Steven replied:

>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.

<snip>

>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.

I tend to agree that Santilli should not be given any more
"free" publicity regarding AA as a result of these discussions.
However, I do believe that what I've outlined does add something
quite valuable to the mix, as you put it.

If nothing else, it helps to dispel popular myths that otherwise
add unwarranted validity to Santilli's claim's about the AA
footage regarding expense, risk, and technical accuracies.

People deserve the truth regarding these topics so that they can
form an educated opinion and not have to sort through all the
mythology and false technical info regarding AA.

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