posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 09:43 AM
Originally posted by MainLineThis
reply to post by flexy123
There will NEVER be "smoking gun" debunking of some stupid, blurry pictures and video of nondescript bs set against a bland background. Get used to
it. There far too many thing it can be, and to jump to the least likley conclusion just because you find that the most interesting is the definition
Anyone with HALF A BRAIN who has these amazing UFO experiences on such a regular basis, if it was real, they would be able to present much better
evidence. If they can't, and if it was real...oh well, better luck next time.....but we should hang our hats on the nonsense that this case put
Mind you i personally RARELY come to conclusions, and for sure not solely based on footage...and several years of seeing UFO footage and reading books
i am still far away from any conclusions
As for "better evidence"..what do you expect? Some craft landing in his back yard?
As for this case, i can only go on what i saw in this "journey" documentary..and i would be able to tell you more..but sadly there really is NOT MORE
about this case to find anywhere....this includes the "debunking" or arguments given why this case should be dismissed or should obviously be a
On the footage you can clearly see flying "objects", not only against a bland background but also in relation to other objects etc...and as said i
already saw other "UFO" footage which was much worse..here i definitely had the impression that something "real" was filmed flying in the sky and i
personally would have a hard time to say that the footage is fake, CGI, shopped or whatever.
The other thing which speaks for the case (again, based on the LITTLE i know of this case now)
* I had the impression the guy was legit.
* I don't see evidence that the case is marketed big time with the exception of that one DVD which is sold in some places. (Compare this to Reed case
etc. or any other more known cases)
Also..you talk about "nonsense" etc. (without a questions have a right to do so)....but then i am missing the "nutty" interpretations and spiritual
"messages" etc. which this case does not have at all.
edit on 14-7-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)