| |
|
This is part two of an interview with filmmaker/writer Chris Kenworthy, the man behind the now infamous Australian UFO Wave 2006 website. ufowatchdog.com would, in spite of all the fake UFO footage, like to thank Kenworthy for taking the time to participate in this interview. Usually when UFO hoaxes are exposed, those doing the hoaxing take off running, But to his credit, Kenworthy took the time to answer some questions about his footage, his reasons behind it, what he claims is real UFO footage mixed in at the site, and his own UFO sightings. The original ufowatchdog.com story can be found here with the follow-up here.
ufowatchdog.com: First, and I'm sure you knew I'd ask, have you ever had a UFO sighting?
Kenworthy: Many. I'm a pilot as well, so I usually know what to look for in the sky. But yes, since I was seven years old I've had many sightings. So many I almost lose track of them. Some could be ball lightning (if it really exists), or misidentifications, but some were very, very strange, and difficult to explain conventionally.
ufowatchdog.com: Why did you come forward and post the latest information on your site about it being a hoax, or as you call it, an immersive artwork?
Kenworthy: The plan was always to produce around 30 clips, over two to three months, and then post the truth about the project. I didn't want to just muddy the waters and disappear, I always wanted to clarify exactly what had gone on. The plan was also to reduce the plausibility of the clips, so that most (if not all) viewers would realise that something was amiss. There was a huge shift when the last two clips went up, and most people did realise what was going on, so there was no point in keeping the secret any longer. Having said that, there were still many people who were convinced by those last two clips.
ufowatchdog.com: What made you choose UFO sightings?
Kenworthy: Shortly after seeing a UFO in 1977, I felt utterly compelled to stage a hoax in my back garden. I faked some photographs, and was even going to fake a landing site (but I was only nine years old, and soon lost interest). I can't really explain why I wanted to do that. But UFOs remained of great interest to me. For a few years in the mid- nineties I made my living writing for UFO magazines and so on, and was also compelled to make crop circles. Again, I didn't see this as hoaxing, but felt like I was partaking in a greater mystery. (I was only a minor circlemaker, I should add). And the time I spent in Wiltshire was the strangest time of my life. Reality seemed malleable, down there. I had missing time, many UFO sightings and all sorts of strange goings on. I'd plan to make a crop circle in a certain field, and then find it had appeared exactly as planned a day before I even got there. Or I'd walk to a remote field, put in a tiny circle, and the next morning find a huge one had appeared in the same field. Weird stuff. In fact, it was all so strange that I became a bit overwhelmed and left UFOlogy behind for ten years. And then, once I became a film-maker, I started thinking about this project. I wanted people to catch a glimpse of what it's like to experience a genuine sighting.
ufowatchdog.com: You mention you wanted to evoke an emotional response from people.
How do you think your UFO footage accomplishes that? I have to be frank
and say that about the only reaction it got out of me was a good laugh.
I’ve seen a lot of UFO footage and a lot of what I saw on your website
did not seem very credible to me at all.
Kenworthy: I do take your point, but I have to say that from the responses I received, you're in the minority. Now that we've confessed, I'm getting lots of emails from people saying that they knew they were fakes all along. But almost nobody said that while the project was underway. We have thousands and thousands of emails from people saying that they were convinced that the footage was real. And although lots of people are rewriting history now and saying they were never impressed by the footage, at the time, many people believed.
I'm also pleased to report that I've had a surprisingly large number of emails from people saying that they don't mind that the clips were faked, because it did entertain or move them. Rather than debunking UFOs, I think I've stirred some people to be interested in UFOs.
ufowatchdog.com: Why would you be concerned about the quality of UFO research, pro or con?
Kenworthy: I get very frustrated by the fact that the World Trade Center UFO clip (which is so clearly a fake) continues to be presented as the best evidence, by so many people. That clips is everywhere, and people rave about it, but it's such an obvious fake. Although serious researchers couldn't be fooled by that, far too many sites showed and shared that clip - and many still do. And too few have gone to the trouble of exposing it as a fake. The same is true of that recent clip (can't quite remember the details) of a big, shiny flying saucer landing behind an arts building. It was so clearly a television commercial, but a few reputable sites carried that clip for months. Sites just post the juiciest clips, without looking into their authenticity.
Now, you could say that these websites are distinct from "real" UFO research, but in the public eye, they are not. So I wanted to make websites more cautious about putting up the latest fake.
In terms of real research, I want that to improve because I think UFOlogy is a valid subject. Something's going on. I have no idea what, but it isn't all ball lightning.
ufowatchdog.com: If you were concerned with what you deem to be a lack of quality or thorough research in the UFO field and that believers and skeptics don’t question enough, why would you decide to fake UFO footage as a means of addressing that topic? Don’t you think you’ve done far more harm than good by hoaxing UFO footage? Do you think that skeptics will use what you’ve done to promote their belief that all UFO sightings are unfounded?
Kenworthy: I try to point out on the website that skeptics were more easily misled than believers . Skeptics would reach for their standard explanations - birds, ball lightning, venus etc. without studying our footage closely. Skepticism is driven by faith, and I wanted to make that clear. So I don't think skeptics are better armed as a result of this project.
Some have suggested that I could have simply offered fake clips up to researchers, to demonstrate the fakery, without any deception. But the moment you tell people it's a fake, they say, 'Oh yes, it's obviously a fake, I'd never be convinced by that.' Lots of websites are rewriting their opinion of my clips now that we've revealed the truth. Some are even pretending that haven't seen the revelation, and that they worked this out by themselves. Because people want to look like experts who could never be fooled, nobody will admit that forged footage looks convincing. The only way to make them see the power of a fake, is to present it as real.
And no, I haven't harmed UFOlogy. The field is harmed when obvious fakes are allowed to parade as real. I hope I've made people more cautious. Only then - when obvious fakes and misidentifications are eradicated - while the general public, scientists etc be able to take the field seriously. (For instance, there's a much-viewed clip on the web, of a passenger jet overhead - it's so clearly a plane - you can even hear it. But several sites carry this as evidence of an amazing sighting. How does that help UFOlogy? It doesn't. These clips should be debunked.)
ufowatchdog.com: You said that all of the clips are fake, except two. Which two do you think are genuine?
Kenworthy:
[Video clip 3
and video clip 24]...They
are not very impressive, but they are real - I took them. I put them in
to see if anybody could spot the difference, but these clips were largely
ignored, because they're not that dramatic. I'm not for a second claiming
that these are alien ships - but they were Unidentified Flying Objects,
and the first one really was quite strange at the time.
ufowatchdog.com: How do you expect anyone to do any real research without having
more info? Surely someone asked for a bit more information than was offeed
on your website.
Kenworthy: Agreed, but only three or four (I'll have to check exactly how many) people asked for more info. And when my team fobbed them off with excuses, these researchers should have smelt a rat - but instead, they posted the clips on their site. I honestly thought the whole project might be exposed within a week, but researchers weren't thorough enough.
Many people were convinced because the clips showed things that are "impossible to fake". Objects moving behind other objects, handheld shots, lens blurring and so on. Although these things are easy to fake, many researchers still think you need a Hollywood budget to achieve them.
ufowatchdog.com: You claim that very few people questioned the authenticity of your work, while I’ve heard many, many people express that the videos they’ve seen are outright frauds. Did anyone try to contact you, aside from ufowatchdog.com, about your footage? Did anyone send you any data or analysis?
Kenworthy: I agree that many people started writing about the obvious fakery when we put that last two clips up, but before that, I saw very little to suggest that people thought these were fakes. I received lots of data and analysis, but almost none of it showed that the clips were fake. Mostly, people used their analysis to point out which clips were of satellites and space junk. In reality, none were. If nothing else I hoped to improve UFOlogy by showing that applying Photoshop filters to still frames from clips proves nothing. Many people seem to think it proves that solid objects are up in the sky. It doesn't.
One FX artist pointed out to me the tell-tale motion blur trails. But she was the only one that got in touch. If you look on the web, there are many CGI forums and FX forums, where people who work in TV, film and FX say there's nothing to indicate that these are fakes. That surprised me. There are also other places where FX artists see straight through the facade. I think UFO researchers should send every clip they receive to experienced FX artists, straight away.
ufowatchdog.com: The New Zealand Film Commission funded a project by famous film maker Peter Jackson, a project called Forgotten Silver, which was the center of some controversy when numerous people thought it was a true story. Was any of this your inspiration for this project?
Kenworthy: I've never heard of that, but how fascinating.
ufowatchdog.com: How much do you know about the UFO field? Major cases? Investigators? Hoaxes? Have you studied the field or are you familiar with any of the literature? I'd assume you did some research for your project.
Kenworthy: I hope the above has already answered that. I even wrote a book myself, called Aliens, but it wasn't a great book - just a taster for kids, really. But yes, I have studied the field all my life.
| |
|