Im also a Senior Paranormal Investigator with the Florida Paranormal Research Foundation and there are plenty of cases that exist that are beyond scientific and logical comprehension! Interestingly, the real AKA Dr. Tyler never received sufficient assistance in her case and was dismiss by officials since this type of conspiracy theory can never be ascertained by officials, FBI or government. Thus, can you Imagine the social crisis and religious pandemonium that would develop if the government was to confirm that Aliens are real! Subsequently, the Church will also lose its multibillion dollar a year franchises. In conclusion, the truth is out there….seek and thou shall find. I would like to find the real A.K.A. Dr. Abigail Tyler and re-open this cold case file in order for her to receive closure on her misfortune events! She deserves that much!
Charles Del Campo
Cult Investigator.
Paranormalpsy@aol.com
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWlbmmla9k0&feat…

I mean, folks, really. This is a movie. It’s not real. None of it is real. It is made by a MOVIE STUDIO and WRITERS.

Both of the “Dr Tyler” characters are played by actresses. Again, “Duhhhh”. And Please do at least a little bit of research into what the conclusions are to the FBI investigations into the disappearances in Alaska.

Isn’t it kind of funny that they all appear to have had alcohol involved? And isn’t it kind of funny that frigid temperatures can kind of contribute to oh, say, FREEZING TO DEATH AFTER PASSING OUT OUTSIDE? And isn’t it kind of obvious that the indigenous creatures of Alaska would want to drag off and eat any nice, fresh meat they find laying around, whether it’s human, animal, or any other type of meat?

And maybe there are some murders involved. Definitely possible. But isn’t it also kind of funny that we are talking about a period of over 40 years, and that seems like it could also be the time period of a serial killer’s tenure in any given area?

For some people, the most plausible and obvious explanations are the most suspicious… because when you are a conspiracy believer, you are locked into a closed belief system, and any evidence against the conspiracy simply becomes part of the “vast coverup”.

Ask yourself… “What evidence would convince me that there is no conspiracy here?”. If your answer is “there is no evidence, because it’s all part of the coverup”, you are hopelessly lost in a world of silliness, paranoia, and anomaly hunting. And that’s a really sad place to be. People who believe in grand conspiracies are incredibly closed-minded. It’s the only way that they can validate their wacky logic processes.

In regards to this stupid movie (remember, folks, it is a MOVIE, just like the Blair Witch Project was), all of the “actual footage” was staged, portrayed by actors, and digitally enhanced. And I wouldn’t consider any of it to be “evidence” even if it was “actual footage”. It’s so suspicious to me that every time some alien visitation video is presented, it always JUST SO HAPPENS to go all fuzzy or jerky or grainy juuuuuuust at the moment that something compelling would present itself. Let’s also remember that with the advent of photo and video manipulation software that is available to anyone with a computer, these types of “evidence” are being reduced to unacceptable forms of proof of anything… But especially when it comes from a MOVIE STUDIO. Please, people, THINK for just a moment. Please. Just take a deep breath, and THINK.

I believe that alien visitation is completely plausible, even given the tremendous travel limitations that would be presented by sheer distance and the Theory (LAW) of Relativity. Although I haven’t figured out why any species would travel over a hundred thousand years to get here so that they can hide and core out the anuses of cattle and make pretty patterns in crops (don’t even get me started on how silly crop circle believers are).

Absolutely all of the “evidence” that a lot of people are willing to accept as “proof” of such phenomena is pure garbage. And 1 million pieces of garbage don’t add up to “evidence”. They just add up to a pile of garbage a million pieces high.

Thanks for thinking. Or at least trying.

Are people not supposed to talk about a film?

What is the window for when we can talk about it? 3 months after release? A year? ten years?

Should I not mention that Bruce Willis was actually dead in case someone reading this hasn't seen The Sixth Sense?

In the end though, the worst part of all this for me is defending lazy filmmakers and marketers who would rather lie to the audience than make a quality film. Their only 'intent' was to take our money.

Universal lost a lawsuit surrounding this film and should lose more. Filmmakers who lie to the audience should be forced to return admission and be held accountable for fraud.

My take on it can be found here: http://thefutureofmovies.com/2009/11/more-movie-marketing-lies/

The only people that I can tell would be affected by learning, through a headline or reading an article in full, that the film does not contain actual footage of actual UFO contact are people who truly believed that there is truth in the film’s claims. As in they don’t just believe that UFO’s exist, they believe that The Fourth Kind contains evidence, or is based on actual evidence. I don’t see a difference between telling people that The Fourth Kind does not contain actual evidence of UFO contact and telling people that Clifford Irving never spoke with Howard Hughes and his book is not based on true meetings between the two.

The only difference I can see between the two is that Irving’s book would be placed in the non-fiction section of a book store, and film has no label to distinguish between fiction and non-fiction. I get that the filmmakers understand that perfectly and used the ‘actual footage’ claim in their film to their advantage because there’s no repercussion to lying in film, not even in documentaries. But, when you bring out your lead actress at the beginning of the movie and have her address the audience as herself and not in character and say that the film contains reenactments of actual footage mixed with actual footage then you’ve gotten about as close as one can to placing your film in the non-fiction section of the bookstore; and basically what the people who are writing about the film are saying is “hey, move the book.”

It looks as though the only people who really think this way are Rob Hunter, Cole Abaius and myself. That being said, anyone who disagrees with us, let's settle this via a fist debate. You pick the time and the place and notify your insurance agency and I'll show up to prove we're right.

If you were concerning yourself with a fictional person created solely as a narrative device? The noble gesture, the service, seems to disappear.

It would definitely spoil the enjoyment of the read if you knew it wasn't real, but is it a disservice to inform them outright in big bold letters that what the book claims to be is a lie?

And I don't buy the public service announcement argument since, by your own logic, people shouldn't really need to be told its fake since they'll know it by the time they leave theaters.

Anyone reading about the movie might want to learn more, but that doesn't excuse the mass of headlines that give it all away even for people who didn't want it.

If you were concerning yourself with a fictional person created solely as a narrative device? The noble gesture, the service, seems to disappear.

It would definitely spoil the enjoyment of the read if you knew it wasn't real, but is it a disservice to inform them outright in big bold letters that what the book claims to be is a lie?

If aliens existed and we had proof, you think you would find out via major motion picture?

That’s the effect a lie has on us. All movies lie to a certain degree. Hell, This Is Spinal Tap never claims to be fiction (but most people realize it is because of the famous people acting in it, the absurdity, etc). There may be a few out there who feel stung by Blair Witch (despite loving it at the time) who see a need to avenge the situation with this one.

Most people writing about it are simply spoiling blithely, but it’s the few who seem somehow proud for exposing a film (3 minutes on google is the new investigative journalism) and protecting the greater film-going world that baffle me.