How effective or transformative is the use of found footage or borrowed materials? In what ways can this be improved? Is proper attribution given?

The footage is effective--I like the choices Jay has made here. It all seems to tie in well with the idea of Jay's original text object. Attribution can still be given.

What can be added or removed to improve the pacing or "flow" of the media object?

I can't think of anything that can be added, or even removed. As I have stated below: I like that there is no sound, and think the pacing/flow at this rate forces the audience to really think about what they are seeing without the distraction of any added sound.

How does the moving image object convey meaning and how does it compare with the other media objects?

I think the imagery is relevant to the story, and is my favorite so far (besides the text portion, because that is what introduced me to the storyline).

How do all of the media forms add to or diminish the finished object? In what ways does it make use of the unique affordances of moving image?

I like that there is no music. I don't think there needs to be any, simply because the imagery is enough, by itself, to make the audience think about what they are seeing.

What is your favorite thing about the moving image object?

I enjoy the fact that it is different, and not straightforward. It makes you think about the imagery, and what you are seeing (which I think delves into the entire premise of the story itself...so, it works).