Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Apr -> Strange Universe area 51 alien

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 06:54:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:41:40 -0400
Subject: Strange Universe area 51 alien

At 11:33 PM 4/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>From: jvif@spacelab.net (John Velez)
>Subject: Strange Universe area 51 alien

>Like many of you I watched the footage of the area 51
>alien (all 3 seconds of it!) with curiosity and an
>open mind. I honestly don't know what to make of it,
>much less have an oppinion as to whether it's real or
>not. Who knows?

>I would like to share the following:

>1. Strieber was right, whoever made the 'dummy' knew
>what these things look like. Right down to the skin
>color. The bugger on the tape 'looks' just like them.

If they had clearly shown the few seconds of video they had clearly it
might have helped.  The show did all it could to stretch out the program to
fill the full half hour, with nothing but annecdotal remarks provided by
experts who were allowed to simply view the full sequence on a monitor and
then comment.  There was no indication of any analysis by Strange Universe
of the video from a technical perspective.

The problem that I have with the "alien" is that the image is so vague that
the viewer is likely to use their imagination or memory to "fill in the
blanks", which means that it would obviously look "right".  The outline of
the head isn't even clear in many frames and even the shape of the head is
somewhat of a guess.

If you listen to Whitley's comments, he never says that the alien looks
real.  He says that it's a horrible video and he never wants to see it
again, and if it is real it represents a terrible crime.  Of couse those
viewing the program probably thought that he had lost his mind, because all
you see is three seconds of video with the head barely moving and a small
light moving up and down in the lover right.  Those who have followed the
thread here would be aware that (according to Sean David Morton's
description) the "alien" allegedly has an attack of some sort at the end
and two technicians come to its aid.  It it likely this section of the
video that upsets Whitley, but the average viewer wouldn't know that.  At
no time did the program attempt to describe the entire video sequence,
which was a missed opportunity (IMHO).

This also holds true for Bob Dean's comments, who responded in a fashion
that indicated he was very upset with what he had seen.  If one isn't aware
of the entire sequence, one would question why he was affected by the
simple viewing of the video.

The program made a major factual error, which doesn't bode well.  While
trying to fit the video into context, they mentioned the "Alien Autopsy"
film as being shot at Area 51, along with images of a (poor) mock-up of the
Santilli alien.  This does not follow the sequence of events, as outlined
by Ray Santilli's statement from the cameraman, and doesn't fit the time
frame, since Area 51 (The Groom Lake Base) was created in 1955.
Unfortunately, they make this statement repeatedly.

I have found "Rocket Films" on the WEB, but can't tell if that is the same
company that is putting out the "Interrogation" video by the summer.  I
have tried contacting them, and await their response, but this may not be
the same group.  On the video, they were identified as "Rocket Pictures" or
"Rocket Productions", and a search of those names didn't return anything of
use.  If anyone has an address for this company please post it to the
"net", as I'm sure a number of people might like to contact him.

As far as the interview with person who took the video from Area 51 is
concerned, it looked very staged to me and if I had been directing it, I
would have suggested that he was over-acting.  "Victor" was back-lit, and
his voice was modified electronically, but I don't think that his identity
would be hidden by someone with good digital equipment.

We will have to wait for the video release to see the entire sequence, and
perhaps then a full analysis of the video will help to determine its
veracity.  I'm surprised I haven't seen more discussion of this on the
"net", but the Strange Universe program didn't really clear up much and
served to publicize a future release of a video (which was obviously the
intent of Rocket Films (or Production or whatever).

Just a few thoughts.

Steve