Nebraska Grey alien film
- Thread starter voggmo
- Start date
I have always been quite interested in what Aliens find so interesting up the behinds of humans if the amount of reports of anal probings is anything to go by, all that way through space and all that technological knowledge to do it and they all seem to be galactic proctologists...
It's acceptable as part as a package of evidence.
Yes because of course that's how it work - then I'll move on and prove the invisible pink unicorns who are under your bed don't exist.
I normally charge for schooling, but you get this for free. In a debate, those making a claim need to provide supporting evidence to validate that claims, not the other way around.
A fantastical claim such as grey aliens travelling across the universe to peer through someone's curtains requires a lot of evidence.
Get an education before throwing around adult words like "evidence" and "theory" that you clearly don't understand.
It's also VERY frequently referred to as one of the least reliable types of "evidence" because of various issues (such as poor lighting, poor specific memory, the eye can be fooled, etc.). It tends to serve best to back up OTHER solid forms of evidence, though even then the person testifying is subject to great scrutiny ... and rightly so.
There are a number of great experiments around memory - one I particular like involved people who had visited Disneyworld being shown pictures of characters at the park interacting with other vistors. However what the researchers are actually shown are faked pictures of warner bros characters who would not be present.
The vast majority of those asked, "remember" interacting with the Daffy Duck et al.
The Irony is you asked for evidence & you've just been given some in the form of film evidence. No charge for the education by the way.
& yes those making a claim need to provide evidence. Kry made a claim, not I, therefore you, according to your comment above, needs to provide concrete evidence.
Get an education & please pay attn to what's going on before pitching out such foolish comments.
& yes eyewitness trestimony can be both bad or good. If 6 people saw & report the same thing, it can be very valueable. If many report the same thing over time, it adds up & begins to have weight. It's a progressive process in this subject.
By the by, the only thing one nets with snarkyness is the advertisement of the fecalesque aspect of their personality. Adds nothing of any value to the topic. & to treat a subject of this magnitude with the Pink Unicorn stance demonstrates extraordinary immaturity & lack of depth.
& yes those making a claim need to provide evidence. Kry made a claim, not I, therefore you, according to your comment above, needs to provide concrete evidence.
Get an education & please pay attn to what's going on before pitching out such foolish comments.
& yes eyewitness trestimony can be both bad or good. If 6 people saw & report the same thing, it can be very valueable. If many report the same thing over time, it adds up & begins to have weight. It's a progressive process in this subject.
By the by, the only thing one nets with snarkyness is the advertisement of the fecalesque aspect of their personality. Adds nothing of any value to the topic. & to treat a subject of this magnitude with the Pink Unicorn stance demonstrates extraordinary immaturity & lack of depth.
Last edited:
The film does show eye movement & slight facial moement as well. This cancels out the possibility it was a mask. A copycat video was made with CGI showing similiar stuff, but again the Nebraska film was checked for manipulation & none was found.
Serious research takes patience & skill. Standing in the audience as a non participant & heckling the same old "I can't touch it, therefore it isn't real" argument takes no skill or talent whatsoever.
A serious researcher collects any & all evidence, trace, circumstantial, testinmonial, & even anecdotal, see link, to attempt to construct what did & didn't happen in any event. Obviously Joe & Kry do not fit the serious researcher description.
https://www.msu.edu/~marianaj/Evidence.htm
Serious research takes patience & skill. Standing in the audience as a non participant & heckling the same old "I can't touch it, therefore it isn't real" argument takes no skill or talent whatsoever.
A serious researcher collects any & all evidence, trace, circumstantial, testinmonial, & even anecdotal, see link, to attempt to construct what did & didn't happen in any event. Obviously Joe & Kry do not fit the serious researcher description.
https://www.msu.edu/~marianaj/Evidence.htm
By who, where?
All I see is a really grainy video that could be a mask or a puppet.
This is a guy trying to make money.
By the film experts & scientists who've been working on it. Watch the youtube interviews, Larry King Live & David lettermen show. Again, I rest my case, you pitch your negative views & have done little to no research. Case closed.
This link is in the 1st post of this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYn4hdz91pA&hl=en
Jerry Hufmann, a professional video producer and an instructor at Colorado Film School, said he believes that the alien video had not been altered in any way and the "being" did not look like a puppet or part of any special effects.
http://disclose.tv/action/viewphoto/1884/Alien_ET_looking_in_Window_Picture/
At the end of the day, there's little point in providing you with evidence, you've already closed your mind & decided without serious research you already are embibed with the all knowing & absolute truth on this subject. Bestowed upon you by God perhaps?
This link is in the 1st post of this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYn4hdz91pA&hl=en
Jerry Hufmann, a professional video producer and an instructor at Colorado Film School, said he believes that the alien video had not been altered in any way and the "being" did not look like a puppet or part of any special effects.
http://disclose.tv/action/viewphoto/1884/Alien_ET_looking_in_Window_Picture/
At the end of the day, there's little point in providing you with evidence, you've already closed your mind & decided without serious research you already are embibed with the all knowing & absolute truth on this subject. Bestowed upon you by God perhaps?
Last edited:
What are they called what? What are is their expertise? what test did they perform. Where have they released their findings/documentation?
Those are basic questions that need to be asked and answered.
Let's see - he's supported by Jeff Peckman, who is a complete crank and loon.
Check out this snake-oil:
http://www.globalcoherence.com/Public/Home/index.cfm
The reporter in your King link doesn't sound too convinced either.
So at the moment you are presenting to us a low-grade video, that has been examined by a low-grade instructor who says that the video is not faked, but that doesn't mean the scenes in the video aren't faked just that CGI isn't used.
This reconstruction was knocked up for $90:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl7F-uO77z0
The key here is that it's all being examined by scientists who are never named, which is generally a red flag in those crank stories.
So who are the scientists who are examining this evidence? I've looked into the youtube links and they are never named. Who are they? what is their expertise? what tests are they performing?
Check out this snake-oil:
http://www.globalcoherence.com/Public/Home/index.cfm
The reporter in your King link doesn't sound too convinced either.
So at the moment you are presenting to us a low-grade video, that has been examined by a low-grade instructor who says that the video is not faked, but that doesn't mean the scenes in the video aren't faked just that CGI isn't used.
This reconstruction was knocked up for $90:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl7F-uO77z0
The key here is that it's all being examined by scientists who are never named, which is generally a red flag in those crank stories.
So who are the scientists who are examining this evidence? I've looked into the youtube links and they are never named. Who are they? what is their expertise? what tests are they performing?
Typical, ignore Huffman the film producer, launch a personal attack against someone you can't back up. Again, I rest my case. You're just another run of the mill half rate heckler.
& where is your evidence that the instructor,( professional film producer is the correct title), is low grade? A load of BS your pushing. You've no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion.
Thanks again for proving my point.
& where is your evidence that the instructor,( professional film producer is the correct title), is low grade? A load of BS your pushing. You've no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion.
Thanks again for proving my point.
Last edited:
So who are the scientists who are examining this evidence? I've looked into the youtube links and they are never named. Who are they? what is their expertise? what tests are they performing?
All Hoffman says is that the video is not faked, that's different from saying the events are real.
Huh.. let's try this again very slowly...
All Huffman is saying is that there are no post-production alterations to the tape - that's it. He's not saying it's an alien, he's not saying it's real, he's not saying it's not a hoax - just that the tape has not been altered.
This says absolutely nothing about the reality of the events in the video, nothing at all.
Do you understand that?
Moving on - there is a claim that scientists are examining the evidence - nowhere in any of your links are those scientists linked. The appeal to authority is a classic part of a UFO hoax - you add in some unnamed scientists to add gravitas to your story.
So once again - who (and I'll remind you again are not named in your links) are those scientists, what tests are they performing? what conclusions have they come to?
This is not me asking you to "do my homework", this is me asking you to supply the barest minimum information to take this story seriously.
