It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian fakes cost $15000 to make

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Infuriating is the only word that can describe what these guys did to the general UFO community. As most of you are probably aware there was a raft of Oz footage recently and the wbsite came clean, here's the link to the story:

Link

[Mod Edit: Link formatting. Please review this post. Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 8/9/06 by JAK]




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Funded by the Australian Film Commission as well, i'll bet the aussies love paying for that out of their taxes.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
More proof that there is money to be made with UFO offerings at every level. The controversy will most likely elevate their sites purpose than hurt it. I'm sure the traffic generated would have been worth its weight in gold if they had a click ad revenue stream.

Be sure there is little or no money to be made trying to present or explain UFOs outside in less than an extraordinary manner.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by nullster]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Yep if everything holds true to form the rumors of these guys being "forced to come clean" by the government to cover up the fact that it is real footage blahblahblah should start in the next day or so if it hasn't already.

I hate shenanigans.

And isn't a film commision supposed to be involved with a project from the start considering it's their money or do they just give the film makers money and say have fun.

Could this be considered artistic expression?

My feeling of course is it isn't it's just hoaxing weenies but maybe I just take this stuff too personal.

From the article:


Perth filmmaker Christopher Kenworthy, the man behind the short films and website – which will all be included in a documentary on the 'project' and its impact – prefers the term "immersive artwork" or artistic illusion, and convinced the Australian Film Commission that the website would not mislead people.


I'm not too familiar with this but didn't the website in fact mislead people completely?

Not everyone that goes to a UFO site is a researcher and you can't just lump all people interested in ufos and the paranormal into one basket the diversity and reasons for being interested in ufos are as varied as the subject itself.

I also don't believe they have the right to claim that this is all somehow a well thought out experiment. And to claim their goal was to improve ufo research is just bunk.

I'm not familiar with australian law but I'd love to see some form of class action suit brought against these guys and the film commission.

Isn't this akin to making a series of films about an amazing cure for cancer or aids and then saying...oh no this was just an experiment to see how people would react to a miracle cure.

They're no better than SERPO just evidently a bit smarter IMO of course.

Spiderj



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I don't belive that they misled a great number of people. Check any of the threads here on ATS before the facts were disclosed. Those that are more objective and require more info beyond the face value of a simple video didn't buy into it. Without master footage being sent for analysis by independant non ufo related labs, anything presented is subject to being a hoax.

If there is a lesson here it's that the more fervant backers of the phenomenon need to DEMAND proof before stamping something as legit. Demand that all the articles are made available. If there's nothing to hide, they will. Don't accept trumped up paranoid excuses of covert forces, confiscated materials, and hit men. Accepting such BS is what keeps charletans and hucksters in business.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   


If there is a lesson here it's that the more fervant backers of the phenomenon need to DEMAND proof before stamping something as legit. Demand that all the articles are made available.


I agree completely but somehow I doubt this documentary is going to focus on the skeptics and those who want to study physical evidence like film masters for proof but more than likely will focus on the true believers and those who were able to somehow tie this all in with their own "experiences".

I could be wrong but I doubt I am.

Spider



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Link

Well I was one of those who knew this one was a CGI fake from the 1st time I saw it. I have to agree with the hoaxers oppinion that most researchers are really not prepared enough to pull apart hoaxes nowadays (especialy CGI ones.) As a 3d artist (and someone who has taught others who want to join the field), I have to say that to any 3d guy, a blind man on a galloping horse could see it was fake.

There are specialists in many feilds here at ATS and I would never dare to tell a specalist on for example 'US politics' that I knew better than him just due to reading a couple fo history books. But its unfortunate thay many think some experience in photoshop or similiar means they are qualified to judge on whether something is CGI or not. I've said here many times that what you see in films RIGHT NOW is a couple of years behind what is actualy being done in CGI.

Its one hell of a lot easier for someone to knock out a 30 sec or 1-2 mins of hoax film of grainy quality, than 'return of the king'. Huge render times then become bareable, and if used in conjuction with render layer compositing even more time can be saved. I think its time for all of us into UFO's to grow up a little. Where as it didn't take much of a brain to work out a photoshop job when you saw it, now its going to take someone who knows their subject well (assuming the hoaxer has produced something that look good of course.)

Anyone wanting to see what sort of quality a hoxer 'could' have right now only needs to look at some of the big 3D sites such as cgtalk etc. I started out as a beliver in UFO's but as time goes on and the more fakes I see, the less convinced I am that there's anything visiting our planet. For quite a while all I've seen is a seemingly endless stream of fakes and very little produced of late that is hard to explain away as a fake.

If the whole field doesn't develop and learn about these new specalist areas we're all going to get taken for a ride time and time again, that will only do the whole field harm.

Wayne...



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   


Well I was one of those who knew this one was a CGI fake from the 1st time I saw it. I have to agree with the hoaxers oppinion that most researchers


You have some valid points but I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the hoaxers pretty much consider anyone who came/comes to the website and debated the validity of the evidence to be researchers. I don't think you can lump all people interested in ufos a researcher.

Someone who considers a google search the end all be all of investigation is not a researcher. Someone who is a true believer may or may not be a researcher and so on.

The label of "researcher" to describe anyone who showed interest in their shenanigan is what I have a problem with, along with the amount of B.S. they spilled in regards to their reasons for doing this.

The fact is they don't know enough about those that visited to draw definite conclusions as to who or what is ufo research.

It sounds like a hollow excuse for shameless self promotion to me not a genuine concern for the health of paranormal research.

Spiderj



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join