David G. Imber wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:36:53 -0400, Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> When I originally asked what was happening here people just
>>> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a
>>> reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely
>>> actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own
>>> experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here
>>> costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any
>>> incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a
>>> farce.
>>
>>Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic"
>>becomes a reasonable assumption. :-)
>
> Well, not exactly. I assumed a hoax from the first, but "movie
> magic" costs $$$. All other possibilities, such as a camouflaged
> heating surface, etc., were just too difficult a stretch.

With today's methods, CGI just as likely as video editing, so I simply
lumped it all as "movie magic". The exact method is irrelevant.

> What seems reasonable is that someone (a corporation) was
> willing to spend the money for a mildly sophisticated video effect
> because they believed _they would get it back_. The promise of profit
> makes the assumption reasonable.

Of course there was a profit motive...

--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008