From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:21:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:58:15 -0500
Subject: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:42:54 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

Previously, Ed had written:

 >>>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>>limitations placed on the cameraman.

I replied:

 >>This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >>to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >>this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

Robert writes:

 >I agree with Roger on this one. Here we have the event of a
 >lifetime, the fraudtopsy (oops autopsy) of a real life, ET,
 >alien carcass from another world. This would not be an event
 >covered by _one_ camerman, but two or three. By all alleged
 >admission from Santilli, the alleged photographer was a very
 >experienced military camerman, yet the quality is that of a poor
 >amateur. You would also have still cameramen covering the
 >shooting with both color and b&w film.

<snip>

 >The next thing we hear is something along the lines of 'Well,
 >poor Ray didn't make any money on the film.....' It's been said
 >that Ray and company had peddled about 400-500 thousand copies
 >of the film world wide which would equate to about 6.4 to 8
 >million dollars.

 >Roger, if you were going to create an AA type film, how much
 >would you estimate it would cost?

Hi Robert!

I must agree with your assessment about the lack of
photographers in the O.R. Considering how the "surgeons" on
display were slicing and dicing the body of the alleged alien,
there should have been at least one photographer with a
Speedgraphic 4x5 making SOME kind of photographic documentation
of the body and the procedure. We can argue all we want about
the "quality" of the AA footage versus other Armed Services
footage, but the obvious lack of a still photographer is highly
suspect.

Regarding cost, this is sort of treading on old territory, but
I'll condense my take on it to basically this:

The AA film isn't very long and the production values, by their
very nature, are slim to none on purpose. In addition, the
actors faces are conveniently hidden. Now, the question before
us is whether or not Santilli stood to make any money off such a
spoof.

Here are the facts (not opinion):

1) I directed a _really_ bad horror film back in 1987 called
"Forever Evil". The script was pretty stale and my direction
was, shall we say, less than inspired (I was not a profit
participant). The entire two hour film had unknown talent and
was produced for a flat fee of $120,000, complete with a
multitude of make-up effects that were certainly on par with AA.
"Forever Evil" has played on the USA network several times and
has, to date I believe, grossed well over 2 million dollars
domestically in video cassette and television sales. In
addition, anytime a foreign sale is made, the upfront money is
around $50,000 minimum for every border you cross.

2) I checked with my lawyer and, because the actors' faces are
covered, they could never prove any connection with the AA
project. Therefore, if they "spilled the beans" and cost
Santilli money on lost sales as a result, then they could be
held liable in a civil suit that Santilli would, according to my
attorney, most certainly win. Most importantly, as Santilli were
to get more powerful entities involved, such as the Fox Network,
then the legal opposition for the "whistle blowers" becomes VERY
intimidating since everyone would want to protect their
interest.

Regarding such, it is also quite possible that the actors
involved were profit participants, themselves. I'll admit that
this is speculation, but it would be just one more reason why no
one involved would come forward and "spill the beans".

Therefore, all subjective debates aside about quality and the
like, is there any reason to believe that a lot of money would
have to be spent to create a salable product like AA? None what
so ever. More importantly, was there reason for Santilli to
believe that he'd make money off of his cheap little "movie"?
Absolutely.

Roger