So... what is the deal with the McPherson abduction videos?
In 1988 a home video started to circulate the net showing the McPherson family being abducted by aliens. This video was extremely realistic in the reactions of the family and the way it was shot, and became a sensation in ufology circles.
A director, going by the name of Dean Alioto, took credit for the video in the 1990s, claiming it was a "hoax", a movie he shot with "volunteer actors" and an $8000 dollar budget.
In 1998 he was given a $1 million dollar budget to redo the movie again, this time with professional actors. Meanwhile, the original 1988 movie dissapeared from the face of the Earth, the director claims it was "destroyed in a fire".
Many UFOlogy circles denounce foul play, arguing he is in the payroll of the CIA to discredit the original (real) home footage.
None of the original 1988 "actors" have come forward. All we have is the word of this director, and his 1998 remake.
What does /x/ think?
1998 film:
https://vimeo.com/971243
>>18986821
>In 1988 a home video started to circulate the net
Scratch "the net" from that sentence I don't know what I was thinking.
It circulated in VHS format, so disregard that.
>>18986821
https://youtu.be/7qKcJF4fOPs
Do you not know how to Google or something? This shit's got a Wikipedia page. Your fact's aren't even straight, budget of the original was $6500 and the actors are known.
The Van Heese family and aliens:[4]
Tommy Giavocchini as Eric Van Heese
Patrick Kelley as Jason Van Heese
Shirly McCalla as Ma Van Heese
Stacey Shulman as Renee Reynolds
Christine Staples as Jamie Van Heese
Laura Tomas as Michelle Van Heese (the birthday girl)
Dean Alioto as Michael Van Heese (cinematographer)
Kay Parten as Alien 1
Ginny Kleker as Alien 2
Rose Schneider as Alien 3
>Destroyed in a fire
Right, the director's fireplace probably; he switched distributors when he remade the film. Why would he chance the old distributor recirculating the old version of the same movie?
CICADA 3301
>>18986892
Damn you are right.
It all fits.
>>18986821
why does that girl in the top left look so fucking creepy?
Her face looks otherworldly. I don't want to open the image again.
no wonder they chose her.
>>18986880
Seriously though, it might have been on the net. It wasn't publically accessible back then, so may whatever organisation behind the censorship transfered it and uploaded it?