posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:39 PM
Ok I've read through all the possible arguements for and aganist and have to point out that the human element in this has been ignored. Whether you
argue for the footage being genuine or fake, there is still a human element to this story.
1. Who shoot the footage?
2. Why is he not allowing copies to be made?
3. If he made this fake footage, then why?
4. Why did he at first seem so agitated being called down to the studio, and yet so calm when being interviewed in his home?
5. When the interview was at his home, why did we not see a shot of the security camera that was used to take the footage?
6. If you had shot that footage what would you have done with it - compare that to sending it into the local TV Station, and then making them wait two
hours before showing up to explain your tape??
The human element can sometimes be more compelling that the actual physical evidence. Imagine a very genuine person hands you this tape - and to all
intents and purposes looks very freaked out. They then tell you the story that their dogs were barking excessively at night, so they set up their
camcorder to take footage of what it was that was upsetting your animals. Imagine their surprise/fear/freaked-out demeanour and how that would
immediately affect you. Regardless of the analysis of the tape and how lame it would appear on screen to you, if someone is sitting right next to you
white as a sheet and appearing afraid, you are going to take their story more seriously.