Discussion in 'UFOnauts' started by SOUL-DRIFTER, Dec 14, 2017.
One could have just as easily posted a vehicle with round headlights.
I'm not saying they are the same creature - I'm just saying part of it is similar, especially the clawed, bird-like arms.
Which part(s) of this video are inaccurate?
Birds & bats are known animals vs. a space monster/alien which is unknown. I look at it this way; if someone told me they'd give me $1,000,000 cash - tax free if I put my money on the correct explanation - something terrestrial (like an owl with some other factors thrown in such as on a branch, low light conditions, panic etc.) or a space monster/alien that can hover, has glowing red eyes & wears a bubble helmet with a point on top - I'm putting the $1m on something terrestrial.
lets start with the low hanging fruit: the image they used in the thumbnail is 100% inacurate and looks nothing like what was reported
the eyes and the hands are the only thing that is similar, everthing is different
even with all factors considered? (ie. the UFOnaut's size, the UFO and the noxious gas reported reported in the scene [the exactly same thing reported in the mattoon mad gasser event])?
I believe if you watch the video you'll see the thumbnail doesn't have much to do with the actual content. So I'm curious as to which statements made in the video are inaccurate?
if they made the asinine mistake of using a completely wrong thumbnail image, i don't think i can expect much for the video itself
I'll ask a third time; what (if anything) is inaccurate that is mentioned in the video?
the biggest problem was the fact that the video maker approached the case from a cryptozoological angle instead of a ufological angle
the other problems are the ones i mentioned above
I wasn't asking if there was a problem with the angle it was taken from - I'm asking WHAT SPECIFIC CONTENT (if any) is incorrect. After asking the same question four times I come to either one of two conclusions; nothing is incorrect or you didn't watch the video.
for one he claims that it was a owl because the head of UFOnaut looked like a owl with it's tail up, but he conveniently forgot to adress the "skirt"
Did you ever listen to the episode of the Paracast that has Stanton Friedman on along with Frank Feschino Jr? (the entire episode is about the F.M.)
stanton bores me to the death, so no
I am a born skeptic. I always had a soft spot for T.F.M. after viewing the video.
I am forced to submit the conclusions are valid.
Well it's mostly Frank F. speaking about his book and the "true story" of the Flatwoods Monster case. The story is so beyond ludicrous that I can't believe S.F. backs him. The story would have made for a great 1950's sci-fi film though.
That's why I was asking humanoidlord what parts (if any) of the video are inaccurate. I'm open to listen. But instead talked in circles to leave me with the two conclusions I already mentioned
theres no such thing as a ludicrious story, UFOs are part of the unknow we can't expect anything from them
When I look up ludicrous in the dictionary there is a picture of Frank Feschino Jr.'s book visible.
Separate names with a comma.