jlockest wrote:
Aprositus Nesos wrote:
I'm certain there was more, but that is what I can think of for the moment. As for convincing the filmmakers, that must have been an enormously complex series of lies, slights of hand, etc. over a very long period of time.
I disagree. I attended the film's premiere in Los Angeles and took part in the Q&A that followed, pressing both Burgess and Barnett on several points of contention that had surfaced by that time. It was clear to me, and to others I'd brought along with me, that they were engaging in a good deal of subterfuge themselves. I find it difficult to believe they weren't well aware of the deficiencies four years ago. Which is not to say that they were involved in crafting the hoax, but merely that they must have known at that time that there were serious problems and were pulling out all the stops to protect their film.
jlockest wrote:
That's then even more reason to have the site opened surely? IF an expert expressed an opinion that the body was real, then at what stage was that, and shouldn't some official body have been brought in then as for all anyone knew, they could have been looking at a crime scene (as it turned out to be, but not the crime you may have thought
). That is my point. If say the expert said '...yes it is a body...' in 2010 (or whenever), then at that point don't you chase DRAC or the police like mad to get something done? Nobody seems to have done anything - no vetting of the location pre-release, no chase up post release.
The closest they came to any sort of qualified opinion was the DNA analysis from Lakehead University, which was conducted using a hair sample which Ben said came from the "corpse" and that he's now saying came from a woman in Israel (living, I presume). The lab never said they'd seen or examined a body, and DRAC was very clear (in my estimation) that they weren't given a specific location and thus couldn't have gone out to investigate themselves.
TCP
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
