|The Latest Live Alien Video Challenge|
|Written by Grant Cameron, et al.|
|Thursday, 05 May 2011 01:55|
The writing of this article is ongoing and will be updated frequently.
The Story Unfolds
by Grant Cameron
The following is the complete record of an investigation done on a video that has just been put up on the internet claiming to be of a live alien from Zeta Reticula recovered at the Roswell UFO crash in 1947. The video, with 135,000 hits already, seen here...
... has often been surmised that the government or the Top Secret group controlling the UFO secret tries to influence thinking in ufology to disinform and confuse. This is done through movies, TV, and in recent years on the internet where it is very easy to post something and hide your real identity. The idea is probably true.
It is, however, also true that often those who control the secret don’t need to do a thing. This is because the UFO community is quite capable of disinforming themselves. A prime example has surfaced in the last couple days.
At first glance, the video looked good. It moved me to post that if it was hoax, the hoaxers are getting much better at their craft. I watched it again and again, knowing that there was a lot of witness testimony to a live alien and a lot of researchers who were offered an interview with a live alien in the late eighties.
Knowing that the source of the video was the most important part of the story that would lead us to verification of the live alien story, or just another story to make ufology look bad, I sent a message to the girl who had posted it - Judy Fältskog. I offered Judy a platform at the Presidents UFO Website to "more fully explain the origin of this film you posted and if you or anyone else has the other videos."
By the next morning I had an answer confirming I was dealing with the person behind the video. "Grant, maybe the world would sit up and pay attention this time," wrote Judy. "Previously I was persecuted for the truth about the Alien signal. I asked myself if mankind was really ready for all of this, and I am still wondering now, cause I don’t think so. More footage will be released of this and other things. I am risking everything making this information public. Have patience, I promise there is a lot more coming. Disclosure is happening..."
It was the classic "I have a secret, and the bad guys will do whatever they can to stop me from disclosing what I know" idea that John Alexander correctly ridiculed in his recent UFO book. I felt that I did not have the time to chase this down, but at the same time I was drawn to play the game. I thought, "What the hell. Send a quick message and force everything out in the open." At the same time, I started to do a background check on Judy, and began an e-mail link to other researchers who like Obama and his cabinet watching the attack on the Bin Laden compound, could watch this investigation as it unfolded.
No sooner had I begun my investigation of Judy, the Roswell live alien theory started to fall apart and a dark figure from my past started to emerge.
Judy was right. There were people after her for the alien signal. In May 2010 she had claimed that as a NASA astronomer she had deciphered an "Intelligent" signal from a nearby star and radio telescopes all over the world were locking on to the signal. The whole discovery was now being dealt with at the diplomatic level.
At first Judy escaped detection as people searched her NASA background. Then it happened. Researchers from around the world began to share information and a story emerged that was fit for a Hollywood movie. Judy Faltskog turned out to be James Van Greunen, a South African UFO enthusiast who had claimed in 1989 to have been involved in the craft and recovery of a UFO in the Kalahari.
After being exposed in the South African case by two researchers in the U.K. Van Greunen had moved around the world and had actually according to the reports had a sex change. Now he was in Sweden, and had gone from claiming to being in the South African Air Force to being a NASA affiliated astronomer. He, now a she, was still interested in UFOs but seemed more interested in making up the stories than finding legitimate cases to investigate.
At that point it became fairly certain that we were probably dealing with a hoaxed video that appeared was about to go viral. I had worked on the South African crash case with the U.K. researchers, so I knew who we might be dealing. I decided to "play" the game. After all, a lot had been discovered already and we were still in the first day of the investigation.
The next morning, another copy of the live alien video was on Facebook, this time with a real bad sound of a movie projector in the background. Judy’s version had no sound. It was posted by an individual who very few people in ufology trust. Maybe this was the source of the hoax and Judy was just reposting it.
The new video was a chance to challenge Judy as to who held the original video and where it was. I sent a quick message and within hours I had a response. At the same time I informed the e-mail observers. One mentioned that the projector sound would not be transferred to the digital internet version, a clear observation that someone was trying to make the film look and sound old.
"The copy with the projector sound is the real copy," wrote Judy. "The original is in a safe place, we have made several copies of it for safety sake should the original be confiscated by the military. If there are two versions then someone has already copied and redistributed it. Well that’s good, that way it won’t be stopped. There is a lot more footage of this film to be released, + 180 minutes of it as well as other more interesting footage. Disclosure is happening..."
And, I thought, the credibility of ufology will quickly continue down the drain unless this is stopped. I contacted the e-mail group and brought up the video in an unrelated e-mail with Alejandro Rojas. Alejandro said that they were also looking at the video but that they thought the Alien Disclosure Group had claimed it was their video.
I quickly messaged Judy on Facebook. "Are you associated with Alien Disclosure Group who apparently are also claiming this video? Do I have it right that you are forcing disclosure?" There were now many messages passed, and now a dozen or more researchers watching the events unfold almost in real time. Many of them had put out queries to other researchers looking for answers. I heard that other researchers knew of the investigation and were getting forwarded e-mails. Still 24 hours had not passed. I thought back to my early research days in the seventies. This part of an investigation would have taken a month or more.
A couple hours later I checked back and Judy had replied. She provided the confirmation that she was the soure of the video, "I am not associated with any group at all and I never have been with any group Grant. I am doing this by myself. I welcome the Alien Disclosure group to associate themselves with this video cause it takes tremendous pressure off me. I am just glad it's out. I am not into getting a prize or a pat on the back for it. With all the disclosure I have brought to the world I have only received been slander, defamation and lies told about me. Do yourself a favour and google me and you will see the disinformation campaign raging against me even right now. Why do you think I am such a threat to the Government that they have been trying to destroy me for the last year already? I paid a lot of money for it and spent 2 weeks in Antarctica to arrange the sale of this video to me. I am not "Forcing" disclosure, I am merely giving it a nudge along."
I had already done the Google and it had provided the needed answers.
Judy, however, didn’t know this, so I proposed to challenge her to give me her whole background and UFO story before I did the Google background check. I passed the message on to the group, read all the ideas and input they were getting, and prepared the message to Judy.
Before I could send it, there was another message from Judy. "Oh, I forget to say, I will not hold it against you if you turn your back on me too when you read the lies and disinformation about me. I am used to it. Even so I will continue to do as I do to bring about disclosure."
This paranoid attitude was also seen by Neil Gould who had actually informed me of the video. Neil runs Exoploitics Hong Kong and quickly unearthed the Bill Clinton UFO tape from a Q&A done by Clinton for a Hong Kong investment firm in 2005. After "some discourse he/she blew her/his top" Gould wrote me.
"You are falling hook, line and sinker for disinformation spread by CIA psy-op agents!!!" wrote Judy. "Trying to make me believe I am someone else or feel guilty about something I have not done is deffintely not going to work on me. You and your psy-op agent friends should know by now your disinformation bullshit is not going to work on me!!!! Should have known that you only have 2 brain that cells and neither one of the 2 are working. Good riddance then to bad rubbish and intelligence impaired idiots. To think I almost handed you classified information on a silver plate????? You are a freaken disinformation agent!! Should have seen through your modus operandi. And now please stay out of my life and please don’t contact me again. You are a person "NON GRATA" to me and a disgrace to humankind!!!!"
Just as the latest message was ready to send I suddenly discovered that Judy had disappeared. Her name was no longer appearing and she was not searchable on Facebook. All of her websites have been taken down. Now it was almost certain that we were dealing with some sort of disinformation.
As the film still makes its way around the world of the internet, the person behind it was gone and it all happened in 24 hours.
Further research indicated that disappearing is part of the pattern with Judy or James or whoever it was I was taking to. After putting out the message of the discovery of the alien signal Judy, and being exposed by people at AboveTopSecret.com, had gone missing, reappearing only in the last couple days to announce to the world another earth shattering UFO discovery.
One reader to the "alien message saga" provided a conclusion was ready made for this latest release saga;
Some very savvy folks over at AboveTopSecret.com (ATS) exposed "Dr." Judy Faltskog for what he/she is: a long time, UFO hoaxer, transsexual, con-artist; not a "Dr." of anything, not a scientist, certainly not an astronomer of any kind. Her/his latest scheme, teamed with another "spacey" con-artist (Wayne Herscel), was aptly uncovered and revealed on ATS - a great read (funny too) and a very insightful expose of how twisted and far some people are - and will go, to hoax others and make money from less than scientific claims.
The video itself was fairly good. Two of the researchers observing the exchange of e-mails with Judy independently stated that they believed CGI software was used to create the video.
Many questions remain unanswered and the investigation continues. Is the video real and Judy/James is just a pawn in getting it out? There is a higher quality copy on the internet, so the question of who has the original is still up in the air.
One good thing has been shown by this investigation. Those putting out incredible video and documents are now being challenged, and the problems with the material are being uncovered very quickly. It is easier to hoax material with present day software, but the same software advances are making it much easier to uncover the frauds.
Alien Footage CGI Analysis
by Robbie Graham
I spoke to my friend Leanne Jones – a producer with the British Youth Film Academy who’s worked on a number of professional productions and who has considerable experience with computer graphics software. In turn, Leanne sought the opinion of two of her colleagues, one of whom – Dave Hughes – she describes an up-and-coming “genius” in CGI.
Both Leanne and Dave are final year students for technical film degrees at Staffordshire University – one of the UK’s leading universities for Film Production courses.Below is a selection of quotes from Leanne and Dave based on several viewings of the footage, supported by my own endnoted commentary:
LEANNE JONES: Producer - The British Youth Film Academy (BSc Film Production Technology: Staffordshire University).
“Well, my first thoughts are that you wouldn't have to be particularly skilled with regard to filling in the detail of the CGI Model. However a good understanding of light and texture during Post [Production] would be essential. They [the animators] have hidden behind the fact that it’s "old footage," so it’s very bleached out in areas and the shadows around the eyes are very heavy, because the skin and the eyes would have been the hardest to convey.”i
“The [“alien’s”] movements seem very fluent. Part of me feels perhaps a little too fluent for the age of the footage.”ii
“This technology is available to students now”“It [the footage] seems a little too polished to be old celluloid... as good as the [B&W grainy] filter is, the authenticity of the film is missing... It definitely has a feel of new footage trying to be old.”iii
DAVE HUGHES (BSc Digital Film and 3D Animation: Staffordshire University)
“To replicate this footage would take me somewhere between a week and ten days, perhaps even shorter. It seems simple, the animation isn’t extreme, and there is no colour value. There is also no anatomical definition in the feet or in the rest of the body as he is wearing a jumpsuit.”iv
“So to model him [build the basic outline and characteristics] should take two days, I reckon. Costing wise, for architectural stuff I would charge around £400 [$600] per day.”
“Depending on what software you use and your level of skill, I’d say you could get a good model by the end of day two.”
Richard Allan (Post Production Technical Instructor at Staffordshire University)
I will give you a more detailed breakdown later, but my initial response is that this is probably a viral marketing campaign, possibly for this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1519461/
The presence of ‘projector sounds’ on here is a big indication that it’s a fake. It’s presented as a telecine, i.e. footage transferred to video rather than a filming of a projection, and yet it has the sound of a projector running throughout. The dirt, flecks and hairs that are added to make it look like old camera footage can be added in pretty much any editing software, even the older versions of iMovie have dirt filters that can ‘age the footage’.
The shots of the aliens are dark and blurry, but even the ‘live’ one isn’t moving. There are sun reflections on the UFOs in the sky even though the ground below appears to be in cloud. It’s also so shaky that you can only see things ‘clearly’ in a couple of frames, even with the slowed down footage as seen here. It actually smacks of classic Spielberg, the notion that you don’t clearly show the audience what it is that they’re looking at as the imagination is always more powerful than the image.
In terms of editing software, theoretically it could be done with pretty much anything. The UFO itself could easily be created using either a model or, if CGI, in a programme such as Shake. Any kind of animation CGI software would do the trick, but I think that we’re probably looking at models for the shots of the crashed ship and the aliens themselves.
Bottom line, I think the whole thing is a promo for something else – think back to how The Blair Witch Project was marketed (and whilst you’re at it, look up ‘White Enamel’ and see what you make of that!).
Richard Allan's shot-by-shot breakdown of video #1:
Starting with the first screen of captions, there are three paragraphs of information on the screen, each character has a blurred drop-shadow behind it which makes me think that it was put together in something like Final Cut Pro, using one of the default text settings. The next caption is also faintly visible underneath the middle paragraph, suggesting that the editor hasn’t quite got their fade in / fade out settings right!
The second screen of captions builds on the ‘secrecy and paranoia’ associated with so-called alien sightings throughout history, but this goes against the first screen of captions which calls for ‘dissemination through the Internet and media.’ This isn’t any form of military-speak, it’s film-maker hype. The font also has a blurred drop shadow.
The third screen of captions is designed to add to the authenticity of the piece, but again all it does is fall into the hype trap. By inferring that what we’re seeing are fragments of longer recordings, we’re enticed to look further and anticipate more. But the timeframe of alleged filming (and the inference of the film we’re shown) is that it was shot on cine cameras. Yet the notion of ‘tape duration 180min’ makes reference to video tape, which wasn’t around at the time.
The fourth screen with footage timings echoes what I’ve said above.
The fifth shot is of the head of the alien, and this is where they give the game away. he footage is made to look old through the use of sepia, dust and noise on the print, and the accompanying audio of a projector. A slight blur has been added, but even this can’t disguise the notion that this alien has too much detail to have been filmed on a cine camera in the 1940s to 1960s timeframe! Look at the veins in the forehead, and the tendons in the neck – there’s no way a camera of that era would have picked out that level of detail in that lighting. The ‘alien’ is a CGI model, with the footage ‘distressed’ to make it look authentic.
The sixth shot is of the body of the alien, the shot tilting up from its knees to its head where it is being measured for height. This is a somewhat cinematic shot, using a tilt. Personally speaking I don’t think that a camera operator with the responsibility of documenting events for the government and the military would indulge in such a camera move, even if it is only a basic move, and if they did then they would start at the head and tilt down, not start at the knees and tilt up. The building of suspense is what that shot is all about, not documenting a procedure. Also again, there’s a little too much detail in the clothing, with the folds and creases being visible when a camera of that era wouldn’t pick out that much detail.
The seventh shot, I can’t even ascertain what we’re looking at! If it’s supposed to be a UFO filmed from another aircraft, then it looks nice and vague enough. But in terms of chronology, doesn’t it seem odd that we have footage of the UFO in flight that is filmed after the footage of the crashed alien? Wouldn’t the clips (and tape numbers) be the other way around?
i This is a crucial point. The bleached-out skin and heavily shadowed eyes are a clear sign of digital trickery as skin and eyes are notoriously difficult to render photorealistically, even using Hollywood technology; it’s common practice, therefore, to disguise lack of detail or definition with extremes of light and shadow.
ii Again, this is crucial. What Leanne means here is that, if the footage genuinely dated from the 1940s, we might expect to see ‘jumps’ and ‘jerks’ in any on-camera movement owing to natural degradation of the celluloid over time and to other damage the film may have incurred over six decades. Yet the “alien’s” movements are remarkably fluid. While we see jumps and jerks in the second video (the one of the crashed saucer), these too can be created digitally.
iii Following on from my comment above, it’s important to note here that the ‘grainy’ look is easily achieved by increasing the ’gain’ (GAIN, not grain) option. The higher the gain, the grainier the look. As for the black and white – that’s just a standard filter option in any editing package. Software packages also come with numerous other filter options enabling the filmmaker to make his/her film ‘look’ pretty much any way that want it to.
iv The jumpsuit disguises most of the alien’s difficult-to-render skin (which would require very subtle and difficult texturing).
Psychology of a Hoaxer
by Paul Robinson
After following Grant Cameron’s interaction with known hoaxer, pseudonyms:
... it would probably be informative to look at the reasons behind why people create these hoaxes to begin with.
There are a few obvious reasons:
That said, what might be the probability of such options being the impetus of the presumed serial hoaxer?
First of all, in this case, it would appear that Fältskog is was not the originator of the video but simply claimed it as her own. Or at least claimed it had been passed on to her.
After a little mild confrontation on my part, I was blocked from her YouTube channel at:
I got an angry little message telling me she was not Judy. She then removed her version of the Live Alien video and disabled all commenting on her other videos.
I wanted to reply with a simple URL:
The above address is a record of Judy's data processing time of the Seti@Home project. Her address web address is listed as the YouTube channel mentioned earlier. And so we must move on to the possibility of compulsive/pathological liar.
The defining characteristics of pseudologia fantastica are that, first, the stories told are not entirely improbable and often have some element of truth. They are not a manifestation of delusion or some more intense type of psychosis: upon confrontation, the teller can admit them to be untrue, even if unwillingly. Second, the fabricative tendency is long lasting; it is not provoked by the immediate situation or social pressure as much as it is an innate trait of the personality.
Third, a definitely internal, not an external, motive for the behavior can be discerned clinically e.g. long lasting extortion or habitual spousal battery might cause a person to lie repeatedly, without the lying being a pathological symptom. Fourth, the stories told tend toward presenting the liar favorably. For example, the person might be presented as being fantastically brave, knowing or being related to many famous people.
Although the fourth point in the above passage appears to be true of Judy there really isn't enough known about her to discern whether or not she would admit to lying about this case. Here is a person who tells people she is putting herself at risk by putting this 'information' out there.
The thought that Fältskog might just be doing this to irritate people or make them look stupid doesn't ring true. She probably wouldn't 'go to ground' if this were the case. Instead, someone wanting to do this would most likely revel in their achievements.
A personal dislike of the UFO subject could come from something as simple as having become jaded with the subject or perhaps it conflicting with ones beliefs. In the case of a professional dislike we can look at the proliferation of outright debunkers among scientists. Fältskog has both presently and under other names in the past.
A personal interest in spreading disinformation might come from an extension of the aforementioned 'personal dislike'. Again, one would have to wonder why such a person would, nonetheless, spend quite so much time and effort on such a venture. A professional interest would include the very obvious likelihood of beeing a government agent spreading disinformation.
To conclude, it would seem that Fältskog may very well have some variation of Pseudologia fantastica. This is especially highlighted by her insisting how dangerous this is for her. Quite simply, this would not be the case if spreading disinformation. It would seem rather unlikely that activity of the kind described could be attributable to a government agent. It could, however, point to someone being fed disinformation by such an agent.
For a free 399 page PDF of Fältskog / Van Greunen's activities since age 14 (1979) see:
In the case of this video it would seem that Fältskog is a secondary player, an opportunist, perhaps. For now, the focus is on a YouTube user named ivan0135:
As far as recent releases of this video are concened, the first appearance was with this user.
|Last Updated on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 15:41|