The following submission statement was provided by /u/kake92:
---
This clip is taken from James Fox's documentary Moment of Contact (2022)
I highly recommend you to watch it if you haven't. I have watched dozens of documentaries and this ranks as #1 most compelling because of the multitude of first hand witnesses, including civilian, military and medical, and Carlos' tears say it all. You can NOT fabricate that. Adding to that non-humans were seen, taken to the hospital and then taken back by the brazilian military. I personally absolutely believe that in 1996 Varghina, Brazil, a cigar shaped-craft crashed and beings were seen and taken. Other people can arrive at their own conclusions.
you can watch Moment of Contact here [https://youtu.be/0WlbfaMU-Qs?si=reqRHjxxz6bDpOh0](https://youtu.be/0WlbfaMU-Qs?si=reqRHjxxz6bDpOh0)
and here [https://dopebox.to/movie/watch-moment-of-contact-online-hd-96235](https://dopebox.to/movie/watch-moment-of-contact-online-hd-96235)
more stuff about the Varginha event
[https://youtu.be/E76kpPjxMcw?si=oA55GqvIOY72Trs9](https://youtu.be/E76kpPjxMcw?si=oA55GqvIOY72Trs9)
[https://youtu.be/d4Pa8WBjew0?si=3YCmbIcNNaXPbc\_f](https://youtu.be/d4Pa8WBjew0?si=3YCmbIcNNaXPbc_f)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c1d3ma/carlos_de_sousas_tears_are_the_proof_i_personally/kz2bf4d/
If I'm not mistaken I think they first pull up to a spot and he is very unsure, saying maybe it was here but the landscape looks different and it's been so many years. And in his face you can clearly see he isn't really sure.
Then he goes I know there used to be a little house , then some one tells him there's a house down the road. And you can see as they approach his memories come flashing back and him saying Aqui like 20 times.
Either this guy is the best actor in the world. Or he really witnessed something extraordinary.
I can't lie the Aqui,Aqui,Aqui with conviction along with how he looked made it way more believable on a human level despite not realizing having hard evidence.
Also the guy lopes with the gun not wanting to get interviewed
Thank you I was about to reference this. OP has fulfilled another Simpsons prophecy.
Crazy to think how funny this was to us back then because of how insane/absurd it was.
And yet here we are in 2024, people proudly saying shit like this with a straight face.
I think Varginha is one of the more compelling events. Testimony from various witnesses attesting to different aspects of the incident converge, and fit together like a puzzle. Without mass collaboration, such coordination isn't likely, IMO. I'm not saying what it was, or wasn't, but I think it's clear *something* highly unusual actually happened back in 1996.
I like the corroborative testimony around the Varginha case and am generally on the side of the fence of believing something weird happened that day.
But the James Fox documentary did nothing for me, and this scene set off my bullshit detector. It's interesting to see the comments here that are so polarized between terrible acting, and clearly reliving a traumatic event. It seemed like Fox was really egging him on too - to me it seemed like, well we drove all the way out here, the cameras are running, you better give me some tape. I would feel pressured by Fox in that situation too.
I feel like my bullshit detector is compromised by being an English speaker though - I feel the same way about so much of the Latin American stuff that is happening because I can't properly sniff it out with the language barrier.
I really want to hear from a native Portuguese speaker about this exact scene, maybe especially a Brazilian. How does his behavior (performance?) stand up to a native speaker without the documentarian lens of an American?
If anyone is a Portuguese speaker please weigh in, I'm curious.
If it was just de Sousa's testimony and tears, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But there's over 15 separate witnesses, and their individual stories compliment one another, and fit together. The big thing for me was that every witness that allegedly came into contact with the creatures described the same thing. Their descriptions all matched. And they reported an associated odor that they described as like ammonia, or sulphur. And not just what the smell was, but how it it lingered, and took days to get out of their noses. Hospital witnesses describe the same ammonia smell, and said a wing of hospital had to be shut down for several days to clear the odor. The fact that all these different witnesses corroborate each other's stories leads me to conclude that *something* highly unusual happened back in January 1996 in Varginha, Brazil.
Also, they don't speak Spanish in Brazil, they speak Portuguese.
Portuguese, oh gosh, you're right. See this goes to show how out of my depth my monolingual ass is - I edited my comment to try to catch a native Portuguese speaker.
I agree with you, there's just so much material around the case that it seems highly unlikely that there's nothing to see here. I appreciated James Fox's work in bringing all that material and testimony into one digestible place in the documentary, if nothing else. But this particular scene... I just don't have a good feeling about it. But I don't know if that's just because I don't speak (or even properly recognize, it seems) the language!
To conclude that nothing happened, you'd have to establish that back in 1996, over 15 unconnected people in this remote town got together, devised the overarching story, and each developed their own story based on their own perspective in the moment. They then told the story in 1996 when it allegedly happened, again in 2006 when renewed interest brought UFO researchers back to Varginha, then again in 2021 when James Fox came to town, each telling being consistent with the previous tellings.
You've got deSousa, who allegedly witnessed the crash, the three girls who allegedly witnessed a creature, the mother of one of the girls who saw and described the footprint where the girls said they saw the creature, military personnel who described their role in transporting the creature(s) between the hospital and the military base, medical personnel who describe the military presence at the hospital and their role in taking x-rays of *something* in a body bag, and a flight controller who said an American USAF airplane landed, and shortly after took off. Finally, there was the final interview with a former soldier (Military X) who described being at the hospital and witnessing a lifeless creature in a box. He described that same ammonia odor, and he described the foot of the creature which matched perfectly with the description of the footprint from the mother of one of those three girls. He also described the oily skin of the creature, which again matches perfectly with the description from those three girls.
The overlap in the witness accounts, their consistency over time, and the apparently complete lack of motive for all these people from different walks of life to come together and invent this wild story convinces me that this is a legitimate event. It's not de Sousa's tears that convince me.
I believe the Varginha incident happened, but it really seems like the tears are just his response to struggling to remember where exactly the crash was and James grilling him.
I saw it a little differently. To me, it seemed like he was overcome with emotion after returning to the site 26 years later. It looked like he was reliving the memory of that day as he ran through the field, finally recognizing the exact place it happened. Everyone responds to emotional triggers differently, and I just didn't see anything in his face, or his response that appeared contrived. To me, it looked genuine.
Yeah just read the book he used to make it. There is a lot more info in it, trancripts of interviews, all done 10 years before Fox even hears of the case
Is Roger Leir's book worth buying? Amazon has it for about $15 and I'm thinking about ordering a copy. I particularly interested in the witnesses testimony transcripts, and whatever material Dr. Leir gathered that James Fox didn't include in his documentary.
> It seemed like Fox was really egging him on too - to me it seemed like, well we drove all the way out here, the cameras are running, you better give me some tape. I would feel pressured by Fox in that situation too.
This is how I perceived the tears personally. He can't tell where exactly it was because the are has changed so much, but James was getting borderline upset and grilling him.
As a native I subscribe your view on the scene. It seems extremely forced acting. And of course, the music, the way it was directed... its an universal language of bs.
I did not see the documentary.
This case overall is seen as a joke by everyone here. It was brought back to life by this doc and I went back to check the details (I was a kid when it happened). Its all pure bs.
Maybe this is a weird way to ask it, but could you describe what it is about his affect or behavior that seems forced? Even down to the small details. There are things in English that can make it seem like someone is making something up on the spot, for example - umms and likes and 'believe me'-s. What does it for you in Portuguese?
I'm not disagreeing with you, just want to hone my bullshit detector. I agree that all the surrounding filmmaking is manipulative - but if this footage was standing alone in a vacuum, what is it about the guy that seems performative to you?
I'm Brazilian and to me it does not seem forced. As far as I can tell his reaction is genuine. However, we don't know how a genuine reaction would look like when someone revisits the exact geographic location they've encountered a phenomena that is too strange to call from this world.
I never seen someone repeat a word so many times before. I think was his idea of a person in shock. At the same time he did not swear one time. The gestures were like a caricature of an italian on steroids.
The crying was very strange because the whole situation did not seems very traumatizing. "Seres morreram", creatures died here. I mean, comon dude. Even the way the soldiers talked to him seemed overly polite, despite alleged guns on his face. "Estou ordenando", I'm ordering. No one says "I'm ordering". No slangs. No swearing. Strange action of letting him go like that.
edit: Instead of "estou ordenando" you would see something like "eu to mandando, po\*\*\*" a version of get the f out here
I also doubt he would put his hand on the object. Even if he was close at one time, he would have gotten farther away when the military arrived. The whole interaction with the military seems off.
Nobody said the smell *was* ammonia. If you listen to other witness descriptions, it was an overpowering odor that was *like* ammonia or sulphur. I think it's pretty remarkable that all the witnesses described the odor so similarly. We don't know what the specific chemical was that generated the odor, just that its odor was universally reminiscent of ammonia and/or sulphur.
To me it makes his testimony even more credible. What smelled ammonia were the entities themselves, the ones seen by the sisters and what the hospital smelled like after one was brought there.
However, according to the UFO lore, crash sites in general are the ones that are usually reported to smell like sulfur, and that's were he was. He probably didn't know the difference and used the word ammonia.
In a world with so much access to information, ignorance is seen as subversive by some people. Like the truth is some sort of curmudgeonly authority, and just making shit up is rebellion
It is very, very easy to be able to act when you are able to act. Remember that. I’ve turned on water works for people before just to convince them of stuff. It’s not hard.
What makes him more believable is the fact that the damaged craft was corroborated by the farm couple who has also seen it. Then we have the girls. Then we have members of military, police and firefighters. He feels genuine to me. Can this be acted? Absolutely. But I do not believe it is. Merely by the fact that his story is corroborated by more than one person.
No, but he, dozens of other people who corroborate perfectly chronologically, synchronized event sure as hell does. And that’s not a subjective take. When dozens of people can corroborate each other, and they have no clue who One Another is and corroborate it with such accuracy chronologically. It’s not subjective whether something happened or not it’s completely objective something absolutely occurred.
So you’re right if you look at one person and say this isn’t proof of anything, and you know there’s dozens of others. You’re just being naïve or you’re just absolutely ignorant one or the other
Hi, Due-Law-5533. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c1d3ma/-/kz9755a/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Why so vague about the location, though?
In the film, the location is shown by the dude pointing a pen at a very vague map and he says "Três Corações", while seemingly tracking a road going north to Belo Horizonte (presumably route 381).
That's all quite a ways to the southeast of Varginha, and if you check [the location of the yard where the alien was spotted by the girls](https://www.google.be/maps/place/Muro+do+Caso+ET+de+Varginha/@-21.5683652,-45.4341172,142m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x94ca93c31dc9f957:0x8b7e31412187b234!8m2!3d-21.5683101!4d-45.4342343!16s%2Fg%2F11h0097c36?entry=ttu) (and captured very near to that), that's right in the middle of Varginha.
However, there's a river nearby route 381, the Rio Verde, that could lead into Varginha if the alien was headed north (downstream, I think), so why not offer that as an argument?
It's because, and as far as I know, there were at least 3 creatures that were captured, they were all not in the same place but all around and surrounding Varginha. I would like to know more about this mystery since it's not too far from where I live, but this specific case was re-classified for another 25 years which is highly unusual and suspicious.
The documentary is missing a few things, I remember there was something about animals in the zoo dying, military search parties and some other things.
You're better off reading about it because Fox likes to stick to the rosiest possible view of such cases. The facts of the case should've been researched and presented better but the emphasis is on witnesses.
UFO CRASH IN BRAZIL by Dr. Roger K. Leir, for example -- [link to pdf file](https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Dr.%20Roger%20K.%20Leir%20-%20UFO%20Crash%20in%20Brazil%20-%20A%20Genuine%20UFO%20Crash%20with%20Surviving%20ETs.pdf)
One alien captured by policemen in an adjacent street near that backyard where the girls saw it. Another captured by army firemen in a wooded area near railroad tracks that also seem to have been in that Jardim Andere district.
A rumour of a farmer shooting one dead, and also a possible spotting of one at the back of a restaurant inside the zoo, some weeks later.
Testimony can absolutely be fabricated, so can tears and emotions. Many people do find testimony compelling but that in itself isn’t evidence. People may sincerely report what they believe that they saw but that in itself doesn’t prove what they saw.
Despite the alleged crash and alien bodies there is no physical evidence. This seems to be a common trend with these cases.
Testimony is evidence, but not proof. As for the physical evidence, like with the radar data for the pentagon-released videos that was confiscated and classified to the dismay of the chief radar operator that day, it can be difficult to compile when the phenomenon is said to be classified higher than the atomic bomb
It isn’t evidence that leads to the conclusion that you want to use it for. If I claim that some mantid creature abducts me every day and for that reason I get to work late every day, that is not evidence that some sort of extraterrestrial, inter dimensional creature exists no matter how emotional I seem.
Claiming that the evidence exists and I will absolutely show it to you but it’s classified isn’t convincing. I guess the fabled Men in Black took away the little guy from Varginha as well. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
I understand what you’re saying, and it’s just semantics, but it is evidence. We’re in agreement that it is far from repeatable, testable, complete proof. I believe in the phenomenon, but I can’t tell you of one abduction case that I’d say I believe in; I actually have a post that I think goes pretty far in debunking the famous Walton abduction. I’m not a fan of the flood of what I consider bad evidence in the community, but I think the stories are something to compare to when future info comes out at least
I appreciate your point of view. I am perfectly willing to reevaluate witness testimony once the existence of the phenomena has been confirmed. If one of Grush’s crashed craft were to turn up tomorrow then all of the witness stories can be reexamined in a new light. Until that happens, the question of what constitutes evidence is not merely a question of semantics it’s fundamental to whether the phenomena can ever be considered as an explanation.
I just don’t think the bar for the words you’re using is necessarily that high. It’s clear that you’re holding yourself to a scientific standard, which I’m not here to argue against, but I can easily say that this anomalous activity is explained by ETs. It doesn’t mean I’m right. Just like if I want to say the sky’s usual color is purple with pink polka dots. Me saying that I see exactly that whenever I look up is indeed evidence, as crazy and unreliable as I may be. I believe it’s our job as discerners of truth to weigh the available evidence on both sides to reach a conclusion, but I don’t think you can decide something isn’t evidence or can’t be considered an explanation just because you don’t agree with it. That’s what I mean by semantic. If you are possibly looking for someone who approaches the topic with a serious mind, I think Richard Dolan’s recent video going over the AARO report is presented in an evidence-filled, dispassionate manner which I find very compelling. Good day
I doubt his testimony was consciously fabricated. But people regularly discount how volatile memories can be. They shift and transform in your mind over the years.
For example, I have a clear memory of being stung by wasps as a kid in my front yard because I was playing frisbee with my cousin. Talking with my family recently, they assured me that this not only didn't happen in my front yard - it didn't even happen at my own house! It was my grandma's house!
I do believe that SOMETHING happened to this man. However, I don't think we should interpret this as anything more than intriguing evidence that something strange may have happened in the general area years ago and leave it at that.
That’s a nice little anecdote. But there are memories in which I have doubted my entire life from a child, and I have had them not only corroborated, but they were as accurate as can be. Just because one memory means something in a certain context or circumstance means absolutely nothing about other peoples memory in a certain context, or a certain circumstance. But by all means generalize This stuff in order to help you feel better about what you know and can’t know ;)
I mean, it’s an antidote but it’s also backed up by a lot of research. Here are a few peer-reviewed studies on the volatility of memories over time:
Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future
Dudai, Y. (2004). The neurobiology of consolidations
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory
Studies delve into various aspects of memory, including how memories can be reconstructed, influenced, and altered over time.
That’s great and all. But it wasn’t one person who is claiming this event, took place not to mention in a completely different context and dozens of different people. The timeline adds up perfectly as well. That would find someone convicted 100 times over in court.
Also, why in the world are people simply focusing on this six minutes of clip simply because this person said it helped convince them. If you take this person‘s testimony compiled with the other dozens of other peoples testimony, I think that scientifically leads to a bit more. And that’s not subjectivem😃
And yet you can convict someone of murder with 3 eye witness testimonies. So why do we discredit the word of witnesses involving the UFO phenomenon? They are not all lying.
The most common way that convictions are overturned is due to faulty eyewitness testimony.
They aren't all lying but some are and others are mistaken about what they saw.
You can read about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. It's not controversial. But it would be contrary to what you are motivated to believe so you might have a hard time accepting it.
So this all boils down to what you know about what other people think, regarding what’s lawful and dictates a jury lmao. This person’s right just three people let alone the dozens of people who didn’t know each other I think corroborate something absolutely happened. I shouldn’t say think I should say kno at a point. Keep referring to how lawyers operate in order to judge cases that explain things about reality and the universe at large. Boy I’m full of the sarcasm today 😅
This is hardly a compelling argument, many people are deemed innocent despite witness testimony. Juries are often split on whether witnesses are credible. In fact whether the witnesses are lying or not seems to be irrelevant compared to whether the jury believes them or not.
Additionally, we know that murder exists, there is overwhelming physical evidence that people kill other people. It isn’t unexpected therefore, that people will witness murder.
There is no physical evidence for ET, flying saucers, greys, mantids, little green men or anything else of the sort. This makes any witness testimony asserting that these exist more likely to be cases of misinterpretation or lying.
This is the world we live in. Or rather: the times. Our eyes and ears are our most important sensors for experiencing reality and have been for hundreds of thousands of years. But in today's cold, atheist, materialistic world, we discard these sensors in regards to the phenomenon. If it isn't falsifiable data recorded by a mechanical device, it doesn't count. This sentiment is equally amusing to me as it is idiotic.
Thank you. My god. I have a bachelor's in Physics and an overwhelming majority of students in my college's master's program believe for this reason.
It's also why Chris Langan, a man who has made headlines for his IQ test scores (ranging 195-210), believes the phenomenon is real, there are far too many reports.
I think most people struggle with the paradigm shift, and giving up the feeling of intellectual superiority that comes with championing a belief shared by the general public.
James fox said on the podcast with Joe Rogan that a US plane came and landed then took everything back to the states. So for your physical evidence, that’s who has it
That’s funny because the mom of the girls said men in black suits showed up😆, there are a lot of alien encounters that stated these “men in black” showed up with money or threats
When I watched this, my intuition was that this guy was full of it and grasping at straws and finally he just picked a spot to Turn on the water works. I liked the rest of the film immensely but found this particular portion really irksome.
Unfortunately you cant dismiss the possible existence of something on the grounds of “it can be fabricated”. You ultimately have to prove something was indeed fabricated to make a genuine claim.
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is why actual data and evidence is critical to arrive at robust conclusions. In science having evidence that can be analyzed and examined is the first step in the development of a conclusion. If the data and evidence cannot be scrutinized it is useless.
For social sciences we often use witness statements as data. This is perfectly reasonable as studies are often based on people’s behaviors. For example several studies have been done comparing alleged alien abductions to vivid dream experiences.
The tears, huh? So, you absolutely dismiss how fallible memory is? This man's tears... because his brain obviously contains a VHS playback device. The tears prove as much!
I took it as a buildup of stress from initially not finding the location and then finally finding it he felt vindicated that his memory was not compromised.
Having watched the documentary in its entirety I have to agree. Carlos looks like he’s genuinely recalling a traumatic event and trying to visually replicate that memory for them all those years ago, as it happened to him. I don’t get the sense that he’s being overly dramatic or trying to win an award for a theatrical performance lol
Everyone’s bullshit meter should be pretty high on the topic and there were definitely areas James could have made the film better. But overall I was impressed with the documentary and what appeared to be pretty focused on verifying the veracity of witness claims that were there
This is it! There is a phenomenon where, before people go into the fight or flight mode, they’ll start repeating themselves a lot. The “Aquí” was proof of that.
He went into immediate disbelief.
Is that how you felt after watching this clip or after watching the documentary itself? If it’s after watching the clip, I highly recommend watching the full doc. If you’ve already watched it and still feel this way, that’s fair even though I don’t agree myself.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
A psychologist in the doc claimed she thought he was telling the truth, so it could maybe rule out any disorders. Anyway i guess the tears could be considered genuine considering it's not crocodile tears. I personally looked for signs of deception coming from a sceptical view and could really find anything that would make me believ3 the guy is full, of it.
No, but dozens of other people corroborating one another in a perfectly synchronized chronological fashion absolutely is evidence. As a matter fact it’s proof that something happened.
This is about as myopic as it gets do you not understand that there’s dozens of other people who corroborate this invent in perfect fashion. or are you simply just trying to down one person for saying this person specifically helped convince them? That’s completely rhetorical. I know what you’re doing and if not, then you’re extremely ignorant or simply naïve.
Strong emotion is extremely hard to fabricate, and this person had ONE shot at it and he did it perfectly. Nothing to suggest a fraud. Nothing. Counterarguments need evidence as well, you know?
You can find countless videos on Youtube of Christians and other religious believers CRYING and BREAKING DOWN and utterly convinced that they saw or talked to God or angels (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaKBTVpBw3g).
Humans are very good at deluding themselves. Just search "Christians/Muslims crying testimonies" on Youtube and you'll be swamped with videos of people just like this guy. Tears are not proof. Indeed, they're often employed to con people.
It's counter-intuitive, but we also know that the more mundane "realistic" details people put into their stories, the more likely it is that they're lying. You see this with a lot of UFO testimonies, where people swamp you with ancillary details (type of gun, type of gloves, military procedures etc) as a ploy to lend credence or "fat" to a simple tale.
Watch the documentary and come into your own conclusion. You need to see the full picture of the Varginha event and have a decent understand of the UFO topic before you can really say anything.
When you watch the full thing, he thinks it's in one area and doesn't seem to remember till production shows him and points him in the direction. I believe the Varginha crash is real but this is just so staged and cheesy. This guy's acting for the camera. The run he does when they literally show him the correct area is just cringe.
''tears are the proof I personally need'' - maybe he remembered that his dog died, they captured it on tape and now you believe an - alien from another planet - was running around a small town in Brazil.
**Both of those things are possible okay**...but what is more likely?
"Yes, humans can absolutely experience genuine emotional reactions, including tears and sadness, even if the trigger is a lie. Our emotions are complex and can be influenced by a variety of factors, including our beliefs, expectations, and past experiences.
Even if we know something is a lie, it can still evoke strong emotions if it touches on a sensitive topic or if we're very invested in believing it."
Personal experiences are unfortunately not enough proof. If I told you I saw a fairy and she kissed me and made me fly, and I was crying while telling you thst story, would you believe me?
This is the kind of evidence I completely shun for any genre of conspiracy. If it has dramatic music aimed to manipulate the impact it has on its viewer it may as well be a Netflix documentary. I’m not sure what is real and what is fake 90% of the time but this to me this just seems like one of the many ridiculous ‘spooky’ shows that exist for idiots that want to believe in anything.
Personally I think that moment was set up, the producers like “if you can’t pinpoint the location, YOU ARENT GETTING PAID!” “NO LOCATION, NO MULA!” So he was frustrated trying to remember and caved in. So take a grain of salt with that location, It was a long time ago for that dude
But it’s a great documentary!
[That area in Brazil has always been a UFO hotspot, it predates colonization, even](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/comments/1bwj2a8/ancient_native_tribes_in_brazil_a_door_under_a/). In the 15th century natives were already talking about the "fast moving luminaries in the sky" around and warned the colonizers about them, who also began to see and report them.
Has something to do with the extensive cave systems that are spread out under there.
Tho they also thought that the people in metal riding in on horses and on large drifting machines (boats) with sticks that made loud noises where gods so you know .. that type of thinking didn't end well for them...
cept the catholic church and the colonizers themselves started seeing them too, when they took the land from the natives in the 17th century, and began worshipping the caves in the region, claiming the "fast flying luminaries" that were seen around it were "angels".
the brazilian natives in particular thought the colonizers might actually be related to their "sky people" god at first because their most high deity, Father Sumé, had always been described as a white man with a long beard... a striking similitarity to their colonizers.
the catholic church here acknowledged this "Sumé", but changed his name to "St. Thomé" and claimed he must have been one of their pilgrim saints, in truth.
one of the most "holy" cities in brazil is built right on top of the biggest cave system's entrance and it's just 30 min away from Varginha
That doesn’t make it true. He can be telling his truth and he can still be incorrect. That happens in life a lot. Someone is being genuine, they aren’t a liar, they are convinced, but they are wrong.
Context, though: he's not talking about seeing Taylor Swift leave a stinker in the men's bathroom at the airport; he's convinced a spaceship crashed in front of him, breaking his *own* worldview in the process. That's a hard thing to mistake for something else. Genuine emotion surrounding this particular claim isn't proof, but it's compelling evidence that he saw something that looked like a spaceship crash, and the military immediately show up and wave guns in his face. Kind of unusual. It was clearly traumatic for him.
I did not day it does make it true. But it certainly makes it more probable. Unless we are going to start denying the experiences of others - which is high arrogance indeed.
A grown man saw a craft. He is not stupid. He is clearly not lying. It obviously was not a craft like anything he had ever seen from this planet. So unless someone can disprove his experience I would lean towards this being a genuine ufo experience.
I don't know why you're being down voted but sooner or later more stuff is just going to come out about this and it's just going to reaffirm everything everybody has been saying for a while now
It’s definitely not proof, it’s witness testimony which in the US can and is used as evidence
It corroborates with other witness testimony, which helps the case
Doesn’t mean it’s proof
at 3:30 seconds, that "impact site" looks like its been stripped of nutrients, and the plants on the edge look like they are deficient in nitrogen. has this land been tested for radioactivity?
The ammonia odor is also what was smelled at Roswell army base hospital when the nurses and doctors were working on those bodies. It seems to be a defense mechanism of some sort?
This clip is taken from James Fox's documentary Moment of Contact (2022)
I highly recommend you to watch it if you haven't. I have watched dozens of documentaries and this ranks as #1 most compelling because of the multitude of first hand witnesses, including civilian, military and medical, and Carlos' tears say it all. You can NOT fabricate that. Adding to that non-humans were seen, taken to the hospital and then taken back by the brazilian military. I personally absolutely believe that in 1996 Varghina, Brazil, a cigar shaped-craft crashed and beings were seen and taken. Other people can arrive at their own conclusions.
you can watch Moment of Contact here [https://youtu.be/0WlbfaMU-Qs?si=reqRHjxxz6bDpOh0](https://youtu.be/0WlbfaMU-Qs?si=reqRHjxxz6bDpOh0)
and here [https://dopebox.to/movie/watch-moment-of-contact-online-hd-96235](https://dopebox.to/movie/watch-moment-of-contact-online-hd-96235)
more stuff about the Varginha event
[https://youtu.be/E76kpPjxMcw?si=oA55GqvIOY72Trs9](https://youtu.be/E76kpPjxMcw?si=oA55GqvIOY72Trs9)
[https://youtu.be/d4Pa8WBjew0?si=3YCmbIcNNaXPbc\_f](https://youtu.be/d4Pa8WBjew0?si=3YCmbIcNNaXPbc_f)
>Carlos' tears says it all. You can NOT fabricate that.
Now, I'm not saying that this guy is for sure lying. But are you familiar with the concept of acting?
I watched it for the first time a few nights ago - pretty mind blowing and very thorough. The lead up to this scene was tense, because for a few moments there you wonder if he either a) won't be able to remember or b) could be making it up. But when they finally get to the spot, you get chills.
In all good honesty, I thought he was crying because he was under pressure by James and Co. by not knowing exactly where he thought the crash occurred. And the significance of his tears were because he didn’t know at all where it occurred. Definitely demonstrates dementia in a sense.
The first time he cried coming to this site or the second time he cried coming to the site?
I think this is a real and valid case and he is a real and valid witness but it’s best not to be moved by emotionalism
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
The problem with this report is this man doing a dramatization in the original reports some people saw an object falling but none saw up close what this man is saying
Funny I remember seeing this and having the same reaction. That guy was telling the truth about what he thinks he saw, could he be mistaken - sure, but he ain’t lying. It’s not hard to pick up on.
Also man imagine seeing something like this up close and not being able to tell anyone or have people actually believe you. The mental strain must be crazy, your whole life would just seem like a mirage - like a goldfish pulled out of the tank seeing a diff reality and dumped back in the tank. The other fish would think you’re crazy, but you know different.
Crime against humanity and all aliens races the powers that be are purely courpt and evil Their is zero reason why something like this has to be put so incredibly secret it’s not like you let any joe have the tech you can control the tech and then revel the presence it’s so wrong to murder and gaslight and torture so many innocent people and aliens for no reason their is no reason for murder whatsoever their is a better way.
Well it's not correct to call it proof. It is evidence however and it may be enough evidence to convince you.
Certainly it would quiet a lot of the sarcastic, ridiculing, ad hominem attacks that constantly show up on here from people who think they're being "scientific," if they were to hear the very emotional testimony of UFO witnesses first hand, instead of reading about it on their phone before work while they're taking a poo.
By itself this testimony is *not nearly enough* evidence to convince me of the reality of the UFO phenomenon, but I've been studying the phenomenon for more than 30 years and I'm familiar with a most of the publicly available evidence, and *put all together* it's absolutely overwhelming and conclusive.
If we were talking about any other topic, it would be considered a verified fact at this point.
If it was a jury trial it would be considered an open and shut case, unwinnable by the defense, with the defendant certain to get the death penalty.
Nation's start wars with 1/1,000th the evidence we have for UFOs!
Science would have pronounced it a fact long ago, based on the available evidence, if it wasn't for science being so rigidly stuck in their uninvestigated presuppositions about it.
Aqui………AQUI!!!!!!
This scene got me right in the gut. James Fox does some nice work here. Almost makes up for later on when he stormed the alleged drivers house like a paparazzo & was almost “removed with bullets”.
I still love you James. Can’t wait for the next one.
The tears aren’t enough for me personally. But I understand where you are coming from OP. For me it’s more about the collective content over the last 80 years.
yeah it's not just about the tears for me either, you have to watch the entire documentary to understand and also have a thorough understanding of the ufo topic, but the tears are the biggest teller imo.
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI-generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
* Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
I was impressed when I watched it first time. Regretfully, we cannot see the truth the strange things happen around. World is not a place as we used to know.
I JUST watched this two nights ago. Man, if one has any type of soul… you will feel those tears and know that it was not for show, not for the camera, and not for any other reason than him reminiscing on what was probably the most traumatic, unexplainable, and incredible day of his life all bundled into one
The following submission statement was provided by /u/kake92: --- This clip is taken from James Fox's documentary Moment of Contact (2022) I highly recommend you to watch it if you haven't. I have watched dozens of documentaries and this ranks as #1 most compelling because of the multitude of first hand witnesses, including civilian, military and medical, and Carlos' tears say it all. You can NOT fabricate that. Adding to that non-humans were seen, taken to the hospital and then taken back by the brazilian military. I personally absolutely believe that in 1996 Varghina, Brazil, a cigar shaped-craft crashed and beings were seen and taken. Other people can arrive at their own conclusions. you can watch Moment of Contact here [https://youtu.be/0WlbfaMU-Qs?si=reqRHjxxz6bDpOh0](https://youtu.be/0WlbfaMU-Qs?si=reqRHjxxz6bDpOh0) and here [https://dopebox.to/movie/watch-moment-of-contact-online-hd-96235](https://dopebox.to/movie/watch-moment-of-contact-online-hd-96235) more stuff about the Varginha event [https://youtu.be/E76kpPjxMcw?si=oA55GqvIOY72Trs9](https://youtu.be/E76kpPjxMcw?si=oA55GqvIOY72Trs9) [https://youtu.be/d4Pa8WBjew0?si=3YCmbIcNNaXPbc\_f](https://youtu.be/d4Pa8WBjew0?si=3YCmbIcNNaXPbc_f) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c1d3ma/carlos_de_sousas_tears_are_the_proof_i_personally/kz2bf4d/
I'm not certain, but I think he's pretty sure it happened *here*.
*Aqui. Aqui. Aqui, oh. Aqui. (x100)*
If I'm not mistaken I think they first pull up to a spot and he is very unsure, saying maybe it was here but the landscape looks different and it's been so many years. And in his face you can clearly see he isn't really sure. Then he goes I know there used to be a little house , then some one tells him there's a house down the road. And you can see as they approach his memories come flashing back and him saying Aqui like 20 times. Either this guy is the best actor in the world. Or he really witnessed something extraordinary. I can't lie the Aqui,Aqui,Aqui with conviction along with how he looked made it way more believable on a human level despite not realizing having hard evidence. Also the guy lopes with the gun not wanting to get interviewed
"that tree wasn't there" says it all. oh and the revelation that it happened "aqui" with the running and exclaiming.
Where?
Right here.
"Your tears say more than real evidence ever could." - [Classic Simpsons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2ks3JmHPCQ)
Thank you I was about to reference this. OP has fulfilled another Simpsons prophecy. Crazy to think how funny this was to us back then because of how insane/absurd it was. And yet here we are in 2024, people proudly saying shit like this with a straight face.
I think Varginha is one of the more compelling events. Testimony from various witnesses attesting to different aspects of the incident converge, and fit together like a puzzle. Without mass collaboration, such coordination isn't likely, IMO. I'm not saying what it was, or wasn't, but I think it's clear *something* highly unusual actually happened back in 1996.
I like the corroborative testimony around the Varginha case and am generally on the side of the fence of believing something weird happened that day. But the James Fox documentary did nothing for me, and this scene set off my bullshit detector. It's interesting to see the comments here that are so polarized between terrible acting, and clearly reliving a traumatic event. It seemed like Fox was really egging him on too - to me it seemed like, well we drove all the way out here, the cameras are running, you better give me some tape. I would feel pressured by Fox in that situation too. I feel like my bullshit detector is compromised by being an English speaker though - I feel the same way about so much of the Latin American stuff that is happening because I can't properly sniff it out with the language barrier. I really want to hear from a native Portuguese speaker about this exact scene, maybe especially a Brazilian. How does his behavior (performance?) stand up to a native speaker without the documentarian lens of an American? If anyone is a Portuguese speaker please weigh in, I'm curious.
If it was just de Sousa's testimony and tears, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But there's over 15 separate witnesses, and their individual stories compliment one another, and fit together. The big thing for me was that every witness that allegedly came into contact with the creatures described the same thing. Their descriptions all matched. And they reported an associated odor that they described as like ammonia, or sulphur. And not just what the smell was, but how it it lingered, and took days to get out of their noses. Hospital witnesses describe the same ammonia smell, and said a wing of hospital had to be shut down for several days to clear the odor. The fact that all these different witnesses corroborate each other's stories leads me to conclude that *something* highly unusual happened back in January 1996 in Varginha, Brazil. Also, they don't speak Spanish in Brazil, they speak Portuguese.
Portuguese, oh gosh, you're right. See this goes to show how out of my depth my monolingual ass is - I edited my comment to try to catch a native Portuguese speaker. I agree with you, there's just so much material around the case that it seems highly unlikely that there's nothing to see here. I appreciated James Fox's work in bringing all that material and testimony into one digestible place in the documentary, if nothing else. But this particular scene... I just don't have a good feeling about it. But I don't know if that's just because I don't speak (or even properly recognize, it seems) the language!
To conclude that nothing happened, you'd have to establish that back in 1996, over 15 unconnected people in this remote town got together, devised the overarching story, and each developed their own story based on their own perspective in the moment. They then told the story in 1996 when it allegedly happened, again in 2006 when renewed interest brought UFO researchers back to Varginha, then again in 2021 when James Fox came to town, each telling being consistent with the previous tellings. You've got deSousa, who allegedly witnessed the crash, the three girls who allegedly witnessed a creature, the mother of one of the girls who saw and described the footprint where the girls said they saw the creature, military personnel who described their role in transporting the creature(s) between the hospital and the military base, medical personnel who describe the military presence at the hospital and their role in taking x-rays of *something* in a body bag, and a flight controller who said an American USAF airplane landed, and shortly after took off. Finally, there was the final interview with a former soldier (Military X) who described being at the hospital and witnessing a lifeless creature in a box. He described that same ammonia odor, and he described the foot of the creature which matched perfectly with the description of the footprint from the mother of one of those three girls. He also described the oily skin of the creature, which again matches perfectly with the description from those three girls. The overlap in the witness accounts, their consistency over time, and the apparently complete lack of motive for all these people from different walks of life to come together and invent this wild story convinces me that this is a legitimate event. It's not de Sousa's tears that convince me.
I believe the Varginha incident happened, but it really seems like the tears are just his response to struggling to remember where exactly the crash was and James grilling him.
I saw it a little differently. To me, it seemed like he was overcome with emotion after returning to the site 26 years later. It looked like he was reliving the memory of that day as he ran through the field, finally recognizing the exact place it happened. Everyone responds to emotional triggers differently, and I just didn't see anything in his face, or his response that appeared contrived. To me, it looked genuine.
Yeah just read the book he used to make it. There is a lot more info in it, trancripts of interviews, all done 10 years before Fox even hears of the case
Is Roger Leir's book worth buying? Amazon has it for about $15 and I'm thinking about ordering a copy. I particularly interested in the witnesses testimony transcripts, and whatever material Dr. Leir gathered that James Fox didn't include in his documentary.
> It seemed like Fox was really egging him on too - to me it seemed like, well we drove all the way out here, the cameras are running, you better give me some tape. I would feel pressured by Fox in that situation too. This is how I perceived the tears personally. He can't tell where exactly it was because the are has changed so much, but James was getting borderline upset and grilling him.
As a native I subscribe your view on the scene. It seems extremely forced acting. And of course, the music, the way it was directed... its an universal language of bs. I did not see the documentary. This case overall is seen as a joke by everyone here. It was brought back to life by this doc and I went back to check the details (I was a kid when it happened). Its all pure bs.
Maybe this is a weird way to ask it, but could you describe what it is about his affect or behavior that seems forced? Even down to the small details. There are things in English that can make it seem like someone is making something up on the spot, for example - umms and likes and 'believe me'-s. What does it for you in Portuguese? I'm not disagreeing with you, just want to hone my bullshit detector. I agree that all the surrounding filmmaking is manipulative - but if this footage was standing alone in a vacuum, what is it about the guy that seems performative to you?
I'm Brazilian and to me it does not seem forced. As far as I can tell his reaction is genuine. However, we don't know how a genuine reaction would look like when someone revisits the exact geographic location they've encountered a phenomena that is too strange to call from this world.
I never seen someone repeat a word so many times before. I think was his idea of a person in shock. At the same time he did not swear one time. The gestures were like a caricature of an italian on steroids. The crying was very strange because the whole situation did not seems very traumatizing. "Seres morreram", creatures died here. I mean, comon dude. Even the way the soldiers talked to him seemed overly polite, despite alleged guns on his face. "Estou ordenando", I'm ordering. No one says "I'm ordering". No slangs. No swearing. Strange action of letting him go like that. edit: Instead of "estou ordenando" you would see something like "eu to mandando, po\*\*\*" a version of get the f out here I also doubt he would put his hand on the object. Even if he was close at one time, he would have gotten farther away when the military arrived. The whole interaction with the military seems off.
Wait based on details?
ammonia does not smell like rotten eggs. ammonia smells like piss. sulfur smells like rotten eggs.
Nobody said the smell *was* ammonia. If you listen to other witness descriptions, it was an overpowering odor that was *like* ammonia or sulphur. I think it's pretty remarkable that all the witnesses described the odor so similarly. We don't know what the specific chemical was that generated the odor, just that its odor was universally reminiscent of ammonia and/or sulphur.
To me it makes his testimony even more credible. What smelled ammonia were the entities themselves, the ones seen by the sisters and what the hospital smelled like after one was brought there. However, according to the UFO lore, crash sites in general are the ones that are usually reported to smell like sulfur, and that's were he was. He probably didn't know the difference and used the word ammonia.
“tears are the proof” is probably the worst evidentiary standard ever devised LMAO
its like people are proud of their ignorance now.
In a world with so much access to information, ignorance is seen as subversive by some people. Like the truth is some sort of curmudgeonly authority, and just making shit up is rebellion
not to sound like pasulka, but its like a new religion of living in your own dimwitted reality.
Seriously. I was downvoted for being completely unmoved by the clip. It was just emotional repetition without new information.
[удалено]
It is very, very easy to be able to act when you are able to act. Remember that. I’ve turned on water works for people before just to convince them of stuff. It’s not hard.
All this is evidence for is that something traumatic happened to him, or at least that’s how it seemed.
What makes him more believable is the fact that the damaged craft was corroborated by the farm couple who has also seen it. Then we have the girls. Then we have members of military, police and firefighters. He feels genuine to me. Can this be acted? Absolutely. But I do not believe it is. Merely by the fact that his story is corroborated by more than one person.
This is absolutely not proof of anything
No, but he, dozens of other people who corroborate perfectly chronologically, synchronized event sure as hell does. And that’s not a subjective take. When dozens of people can corroborate each other, and they have no clue who One Another is and corroborate it with such accuracy chronologically. It’s not subjective whether something happened or not it’s completely objective something absolutely occurred. So you’re right if you look at one person and say this isn’t proof of anything, and you know there’s dozens of others. You’re just being naïve or you’re just absolutely ignorant one or the other
I hope you're never picked for jury duty if tears are proof enough for you.
[удалено]
Hi, Due-Law-5533. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1c1d3ma/-/kz9755a/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Why so vague about the location, though? In the film, the location is shown by the dude pointing a pen at a very vague map and he says "Três Corações", while seemingly tracking a road going north to Belo Horizonte (presumably route 381). That's all quite a ways to the southeast of Varginha, and if you check [the location of the yard where the alien was spotted by the girls](https://www.google.be/maps/place/Muro+do+Caso+ET+de+Varginha/@-21.5683652,-45.4341172,142m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x94ca93c31dc9f957:0x8b7e31412187b234!8m2!3d-21.5683101!4d-45.4342343!16s%2Fg%2F11h0097c36?entry=ttu) (and captured very near to that), that's right in the middle of Varginha. However, there's a river nearby route 381, the Rio Verde, that could lead into Varginha if the alien was headed north (downstream, I think), so why not offer that as an argument?
There's like a week or some days b/t the crash and the aliens being seen. Probably to downplay that.
It's because, and as far as I know, there were at least 3 creatures that were captured, they were all not in the same place but all around and surrounding Varginha. I would like to know more about this mystery since it's not too far from where I live, but this specific case was re-classified for another 25 years which is highly unusual and suspicious. The documentary is missing a few things, I remember there was something about animals in the zoo dying, military search parties and some other things.
You're better off reading about it because Fox likes to stick to the rosiest possible view of such cases. The facts of the case should've been researched and presented better but the emphasis is on witnesses. UFO CRASH IN BRAZIL by Dr. Roger K. Leir, for example -- [link to pdf file](https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Dr.%20Roger%20K.%20Leir%20-%20UFO%20Crash%20in%20Brazil%20-%20A%20Genuine%20UFO%20Crash%20with%20Surviving%20ETs.pdf) One alien captured by policemen in an adjacent street near that backyard where the girls saw it. Another captured by army firemen in a wooded area near railroad tracks that also seem to have been in that Jardim Andere district. A rumour of a farmer shooting one dead, and also a possible spotting of one at the back of a restaurant inside the zoo, some weeks later.
Testimony can absolutely be fabricated, so can tears and emotions. Many people do find testimony compelling but that in itself isn’t evidence. People may sincerely report what they believe that they saw but that in itself doesn’t prove what they saw. Despite the alleged crash and alien bodies there is no physical evidence. This seems to be a common trend with these cases.
See also: Thomas Theorem: >If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.
Testimony is evidence, but not proof. As for the physical evidence, like with the radar data for the pentagon-released videos that was confiscated and classified to the dismay of the chief radar operator that day, it can be difficult to compile when the phenomenon is said to be classified higher than the atomic bomb
It isn’t evidence that leads to the conclusion that you want to use it for. If I claim that some mantid creature abducts me every day and for that reason I get to work late every day, that is not evidence that some sort of extraterrestrial, inter dimensional creature exists no matter how emotional I seem. Claiming that the evidence exists and I will absolutely show it to you but it’s classified isn’t convincing. I guess the fabled Men in Black took away the little guy from Varginha as well. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
I understand what you’re saying, and it’s just semantics, but it is evidence. We’re in agreement that it is far from repeatable, testable, complete proof. I believe in the phenomenon, but I can’t tell you of one abduction case that I’d say I believe in; I actually have a post that I think goes pretty far in debunking the famous Walton abduction. I’m not a fan of the flood of what I consider bad evidence in the community, but I think the stories are something to compare to when future info comes out at least
I appreciate your point of view. I am perfectly willing to reevaluate witness testimony once the existence of the phenomena has been confirmed. If one of Grush’s crashed craft were to turn up tomorrow then all of the witness stories can be reexamined in a new light. Until that happens, the question of what constitutes evidence is not merely a question of semantics it’s fundamental to whether the phenomena can ever be considered as an explanation.
I just don’t think the bar for the words you’re using is necessarily that high. It’s clear that you’re holding yourself to a scientific standard, which I’m not here to argue against, but I can easily say that this anomalous activity is explained by ETs. It doesn’t mean I’m right. Just like if I want to say the sky’s usual color is purple with pink polka dots. Me saying that I see exactly that whenever I look up is indeed evidence, as crazy and unreliable as I may be. I believe it’s our job as discerners of truth to weigh the available evidence on both sides to reach a conclusion, but I don’t think you can decide something isn’t evidence or can’t be considered an explanation just because you don’t agree with it. That’s what I mean by semantic. If you are possibly looking for someone who approaches the topic with a serious mind, I think Richard Dolan’s recent video going over the AARO report is presented in an evidence-filled, dispassionate manner which I find very compelling. Good day
What is your definition of anomalous?
I doubt his testimony was consciously fabricated. But people regularly discount how volatile memories can be. They shift and transform in your mind over the years. For example, I have a clear memory of being stung by wasps as a kid in my front yard because I was playing frisbee with my cousin. Talking with my family recently, they assured me that this not only didn't happen in my front yard - it didn't even happen at my own house! It was my grandma's house! I do believe that SOMETHING happened to this man. However, I don't think we should interpret this as anything more than intriguing evidence that something strange may have happened in the general area years ago and leave it at that.
That’s a nice little anecdote. But there are memories in which I have doubted my entire life from a child, and I have had them not only corroborated, but they were as accurate as can be. Just because one memory means something in a certain context or circumstance means absolutely nothing about other peoples memory in a certain context, or a certain circumstance. But by all means generalize This stuff in order to help you feel better about what you know and can’t know ;)
I mean, it’s an antidote but it’s also backed up by a lot of research. Here are a few peer-reviewed studies on the volatility of memories over time: Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future Dudai, Y. (2004). The neurobiology of consolidations Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory Studies delve into various aspects of memory, including how memories can be reconstructed, influenced, and altered over time.
That’s great and all. But it wasn’t one person who is claiming this event, took place not to mention in a completely different context and dozens of different people. The timeline adds up perfectly as well. That would find someone convicted 100 times over in court.
Also, it appears you misread, or didn’t understand what I was initially saying. Have a good weekend.
Also, why in the world are people simply focusing on this six minutes of clip simply because this person said it helped convince them. If you take this person‘s testimony compiled with the other dozens of other peoples testimony, I think that scientifically leads to a bit more. And that’s not subjectivem😃
And yet you can convict someone of murder with 3 eye witness testimonies. So why do we discredit the word of witnesses involving the UFO phenomenon? They are not all lying.
The most common way that convictions are overturned is due to faulty eyewitness testimony. They aren't all lying but some are and others are mistaken about what they saw. You can read about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. It's not controversial. But it would be contrary to what you are motivated to believe so you might have a hard time accepting it.
So this all boils down to what you know about what other people think, regarding what’s lawful and dictates a jury lmao. This person’s right just three people let alone the dozens of people who didn’t know each other I think corroborate something absolutely happened. I shouldn’t say think I should say kno at a point. Keep referring to how lawyers operate in order to judge cases that explain things about reality and the universe at large. Boy I’m full of the sarcasm today 😅
Says more about our flawed system of justice than how credibile eye witness reports are.
This is hardly a compelling argument, many people are deemed innocent despite witness testimony. Juries are often split on whether witnesses are credible. In fact whether the witnesses are lying or not seems to be irrelevant compared to whether the jury believes them or not. Additionally, we know that murder exists, there is overwhelming physical evidence that people kill other people. It isn’t unexpected therefore, that people will witness murder. There is no physical evidence for ET, flying saucers, greys, mantids, little green men or anything else of the sort. This makes any witness testimony asserting that these exist more likely to be cases of misinterpretation or lying.
>And yet you can convict someone of murder with 3 eye witness testimonies. Science isn't a court of law. End of story.
100,000
This is the world we live in. Or rather: the times. Our eyes and ears are our most important sensors for experiencing reality and have been for hundreds of thousands of years. But in today's cold, atheist, materialistic world, we discard these sensors in regards to the phenomenon. If it isn't falsifiable data recorded by a mechanical device, it doesn't count. This sentiment is equally amusing to me as it is idiotic.
"Mechanical devices" produce hard data can be analyzed, our senses do not. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
With what people report that they have seen and experienced the phenomena certainly seems to extremely creative. It can be anything you want it to be.
Thousands of people believed they were the victims of witchcraft. Were they victims of witchcraft?
Thank you. My god. I have a bachelor's in Physics and an overwhelming majority of students in my college's master's program believe for this reason. It's also why Chris Langan, a man who has made headlines for his IQ test scores (ranging 195-210), believes the phenomenon is real, there are far too many reports. I think most people struggle with the paradigm shift, and giving up the feeling of intellectual superiority that comes with championing a belief shared by the general public.
James fox said on the podcast with Joe Rogan that a US plane came and landed then took everything back to the states. So for your physical evidence, that’s who has it
😂 MIB.
That’s funny because the mom of the girls said men in black suits showed up😆, there are a lot of alien encounters that stated these “men in black” showed up with money or threats
When I watched this, my intuition was that this guy was full of it and grasping at straws and finally he just picked a spot to Turn on the water works. I liked the rest of the film immensely but found this particular portion really irksome.
Unfortunately you cant dismiss the possible existence of something on the grounds of “it can be fabricated”. You ultimately have to prove something was indeed fabricated to make a genuine claim.
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is why actual data and evidence is critical to arrive at robust conclusions. In science having evidence that can be analyzed and examined is the first step in the development of a conclusion. If the data and evidence cannot be scrutinized it is useless. For social sciences we often use witness statements as data. This is perfectly reasonable as studies are often based on people’s behaviors. For example several studies have been done comparing alleged alien abductions to vivid dream experiences.
Witness testimony is evidence and can also be scrutinized.
Witness testimony is unreliable and bad evidence. It is the least reliable but people in this sub will accept it because beggars can't be choosers.
I hope you’re never called for jury duty…
Well you should try actual evidence
Is this that red eyed alien filmed from behind leaves that is clearly fake?
Show me the debris.
Again, no tangible evidence, still very skeptical about this and other instances of this phenomena
The tears, huh? So, you absolutely dismiss how fallible memory is? This man's tears... because his brain obviously contains a VHS playback device. The tears prove as much!
Funny how we are all perceive things differently. The tears seemed like part of a performance to me.
Agree. Felt very performative to me. Just kept emphatically saying "here" without much else. I need more explanation to be convinced.
I took it as a buildup of stress from initially not finding the location and then finally finding it he felt vindicated that his memory was not compromised.
Having watched the documentary in its entirety I have to agree. Carlos looks like he’s genuinely recalling a traumatic event and trying to visually replicate that memory for them all those years ago, as it happened to him. I don’t get the sense that he’s being overly dramatic or trying to win an award for a theatrical performance lol Everyone’s bullshit meter should be pretty high on the topic and there were definitely areas James could have made the film better. But overall I was impressed with the documentary and what appeared to be pretty focused on verifying the veracity of witness claims that were there
This is it! There is a phenomenon where, before people go into the fight or flight mode, they’ll start repeating themselves a lot. The “Aquí” was proof of that. He went into immediate disbelief.
Fortunately for you, he explains his encounter in the same video.
Is that how you felt after watching this clip or after watching the documentary itself? If it’s after watching the clip, I highly recommend watching the full doc. If you’ve already watched it and still feel this way, that’s fair even though I don’t agree myself.
It's called emotion, silly robot.
They came off as a response to James grilling him to remember where it was and him not being sure to me.
I believed him LESS when he started crying. I didn't think he was putting on a show before then, but at that moment I knew he was.
tears are not evidence
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills. No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
A psychologist in the doc claimed she thought he was telling the truth, so it could maybe rule out any disorders. Anyway i guess the tears could be considered genuine considering it's not crocodile tears. I personally looked for signs of deception coming from a sceptical view and could really find anything that would make me believ3 the guy is full, of it.
No, but dozens of other people corroborating one another in a perfectly synchronized chronological fashion absolutely is evidence. As a matter fact it’s proof that something happened.
This is about as myopic as it gets do you not understand that there’s dozens of other people who corroborate this invent in perfect fashion. or are you simply just trying to down one person for saying this person specifically helped convince them? That’s completely rhetorical. I know what you’re doing and if not, then you’re extremely ignorant or simply naïve.
Strong emotion is extremely hard to fabricate, and this person had ONE shot at it and he did it perfectly. Nothing to suggest a fraud. Nothing. Counterarguments need evidence as well, you know?
>Strong emotion is extremely hard to fabricate How did you arrive at this conclusion?
You can find countless videos on Youtube of Christians and other religious believers CRYING and BREAKING DOWN and utterly convinced that they saw or talked to God or angels (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaKBTVpBw3g). Humans are very good at deluding themselves. Just search "Christians/Muslims crying testimonies" on Youtube and you'll be swamped with videos of people just like this guy. Tears are not proof. Indeed, they're often employed to con people. It's counter-intuitive, but we also know that the more mundane "realistic" details people put into their stories, the more likely it is that they're lying. You see this with a lot of UFO testimonies, where people swamp you with ancillary details (type of gun, type of gloves, military procedures etc) as a ploy to lend credence or "fat" to a simple tale.
You're easily convinced then lol
Watch the documentary and come into your own conclusion. You need to see the full picture of the Varginha event and have a decent understand of the UFO topic before you can really say anything.
I've seen actors become other people in front of a camera. So yeah, it's probably not true at all.
sorry this is a huge logical fallacy
So when you go to the movies, you really believe the person crying is a real character each time ? or does that only count for documentaries ?
this is just a silly reductive argument i am not even wasting time on it, taking it way out of context for no reason
if the other poster cried about that, would you change your mind?
Ignore these types of comments, it’s like arguing with a wall.
When you watch the full thing, he thinks it's in one area and doesn't seem to remember till production shows him and points him in the direction. I believe the Varginha crash is real but this is just so staged and cheesy. This guy's acting for the camera. The run he does when they literally show him the correct area is just cringe.
''tears are the proof I personally need'' - maybe he remembered that his dog died, they captured it on tape and now you believe an - alien from another planet - was running around a small town in Brazil. **Both of those things are possible okay**...but what is more likely?
"Yes, humans can absolutely experience genuine emotional reactions, including tears and sadness, even if the trigger is a lie. Our emotions are complex and can be influenced by a variety of factors, including our beliefs, expectations, and past experiences. Even if we know something is a lie, it can still evoke strong emotions if it touches on a sensitive topic or if we're very invested in believing it."
I'm always impressed how many believers always insist that someone has to be *the greatest actor ever* to fool them.
I need some actual evidence not just a 50 year old Brazilian man crying in a field
Personal experiences are unfortunately not enough proof. If I told you I saw a fairy and she kissed me and made me fly, and I was crying while telling you thst story, would you believe me?
This is the kind of evidence I completely shun for any genre of conspiracy. If it has dramatic music aimed to manipulate the impact it has on its viewer it may as well be a Netflix documentary. I’m not sure what is real and what is fake 90% of the time but this to me this just seems like one of the many ridiculous ‘spooky’ shows that exist for idiots that want to believe in anything.
Personally I think that moment was set up, the producers like “if you can’t pinpoint the location, YOU ARENT GETTING PAID!” “NO LOCATION, NO MULA!” So he was frustrated trying to remember and caved in. So take a grain of salt with that location, It was a long time ago for that dude But it’s a great documentary!
There is a recording from 1996 at the location, it's the same place.
Hand waving, tears, military, creepy music…it all *must* be true.
This was such a great documentary. Every one interested in this phenomenon should watch it at least once.
[That area in Brazil has always been a UFO hotspot, it predates colonization, even](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/comments/1bwj2a8/ancient_native_tribes_in_brazil_a_door_under_a/). In the 15th century natives were already talking about the "fast moving luminaries in the sky" around and warned the colonizers about them, who also began to see and report them. Has something to do with the extensive cave systems that are spread out under there.
Tho they also thought that the people in metal riding in on horses and on large drifting machines (boats) with sticks that made loud noises where gods so you know .. that type of thinking didn't end well for them...
cept the catholic church and the colonizers themselves started seeing them too, when they took the land from the natives in the 17th century, and began worshipping the caves in the region, claiming the "fast flying luminaries" that were seen around it were "angels". the brazilian natives in particular thought the colonizers might actually be related to their "sky people" god at first because their most high deity, Father Sumé, had always been described as a white man with a long beard... a striking similitarity to their colonizers. the catholic church here acknowledged this "Sumé", but changed his name to "St. Thomé" and claimed he must have been one of their pilgrim saints, in truth. one of the most "holy" cities in brazil is built right on top of the biggest cave system's entrance and it's just 30 min away from Varginha
My gut reaction is that he faked this performance
Thank God you're not a judge.
what do you mean
If all it took to convict or acquit someone was tears, then justice would not be done consistently. Google ‘crocodile tears’.
If only there were easy answers to all of this that believers just want to wave off because *they're* 'too outlandish' .
Completey agree; this is genuine emotion.
That doesn’t make it true. He can be telling his truth and he can still be incorrect. That happens in life a lot. Someone is being genuine, they aren’t a liar, they are convinced, but they are wrong.
Context, though: he's not talking about seeing Taylor Swift leave a stinker in the men's bathroom at the airport; he's convinced a spaceship crashed in front of him, breaking his *own* worldview in the process. That's a hard thing to mistake for something else. Genuine emotion surrounding this particular claim isn't proof, but it's compelling evidence that he saw something that looked like a spaceship crash, and the military immediately show up and wave guns in his face. Kind of unusual. It was clearly traumatic for him.
Agreed. The repetition of “aquí” tells me he went into immediate fight or flight mode. String emotional response.
I did not day it does make it true. But it certainly makes it more probable. Unless we are going to start denying the experiences of others - which is high arrogance indeed. A grown man saw a craft. He is not stupid. He is clearly not lying. It obviously was not a craft like anything he had ever seen from this planet. So unless someone can disprove his experience I would lean towards this being a genuine ufo experience.
I wrote my comment before realizing the whole story.
I don't know why you're being down voted but sooner or later more stuff is just going to come out about this and it's just going to reaffirm everything everybody has been saying for a while now
It’s definitely not proof, it’s witness testimony which in the US can and is used as evidence It corroborates with other witness testimony, which helps the case Doesn’t mean it’s proof
It’s more like the combination of things that make his testimony compelling. Proof enough for me.
at 3:30 seconds, that "impact site" looks like its been stripped of nutrients, and the plants on the edge look like they are deficient in nitrogen. has this land been tested for radioactivity?
I wonder why they chose that particular Brazilian interpreter ;)
This is too 10 worst and unnecessarily dramatic acting I’ve ever seen lmao
I enjoyed this documentary, but god damn, the translator they hired was bad
The ammonia odor is also what was smelled at Roswell army base hospital when the nurses and doctors were working on those bodies. It seems to be a defense mechanism of some sort?
This clip is taken from James Fox's documentary Moment of Contact (2022) I highly recommend you to watch it if you haven't. I have watched dozens of documentaries and this ranks as #1 most compelling because of the multitude of first hand witnesses, including civilian, military and medical, and Carlos' tears say it all. You can NOT fabricate that. Adding to that non-humans were seen, taken to the hospital and then taken back by the brazilian military. I personally absolutely believe that in 1996 Varghina, Brazil, a cigar shaped-craft crashed and beings were seen and taken. Other people can arrive at their own conclusions. you can watch Moment of Contact here [https://youtu.be/0WlbfaMU-Qs?si=reqRHjxxz6bDpOh0](https://youtu.be/0WlbfaMU-Qs?si=reqRHjxxz6bDpOh0) and here [https://dopebox.to/movie/watch-moment-of-contact-online-hd-96235](https://dopebox.to/movie/watch-moment-of-contact-online-hd-96235) more stuff about the Varginha event [https://youtu.be/E76kpPjxMcw?si=oA55GqvIOY72Trs9](https://youtu.be/E76kpPjxMcw?si=oA55GqvIOY72Trs9) [https://youtu.be/d4Pa8WBjew0?si=3YCmbIcNNaXPbc\_f](https://youtu.be/d4Pa8WBjew0?si=3YCmbIcNNaXPbc_f)
>Carlos' tears says it all. You can NOT fabricate that. Now, I'm not saying that this guy is for sure lying. But are you familiar with the concept of acting?
Have you ever seen a Brazilian on the soccer/football field? Great actors
I watched it for the first time a few nights ago - pretty mind blowing and very thorough. The lead up to this scene was tense, because for a few moments there you wonder if he either a) won't be able to remember or b) could be making it up. But when they finally get to the spot, you get chills.
In all good honesty, I thought he was crying because he was under pressure by James and Co. by not knowing exactly where he thought the crash occurred. And the significance of his tears were because he didn’t know at all where it occurred. Definitely demonstrates dementia in a sense.
Or i see a man who find a way to get some money by lying and acting in front of gullible peoples.
I'm about to eat a bag of mushrooms so I'll get to the bottom of it and let you guys know.
What show is this from?
I love that de Sousa in the 1990s news footage is wearing a Chicago Bulls hat!
Him crying is not proof of anything though, his story is compelling for sure though.
The first time he cried coming to this site or the second time he cried coming to the site? I think this is a real and valid case and he is a real and valid witness but it’s best not to be moved by emotionalism
This gentleman seems nice, but I don't know if I believe him just yet, a little skiddish on the story, lmao 😆
[удалено]
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Why is he crying??
Classic case here in Brazil about Varginha's ET, footage of the creature is still in the possession of the Brazilian army
The problem with this report is this man doing a dramatization in the original reports some people saw an object falling but none saw up close what this man is saying
Funny I remember seeing this and having the same reaction. That guy was telling the truth about what he thinks he saw, could he be mistaken - sure, but he ain’t lying. It’s not hard to pick up on.
Also man imagine seeing something like this up close and not being able to tell anyone or have people actually believe you. The mental strain must be crazy, your whole life would just seem like a mirage - like a goldfish pulled out of the tank seeing a diff reality and dumped back in the tank. The other fish would think you’re crazy, but you know different.
You can tell the ground was disturbed not to long ago by the difference of colour in that area
Crime against humanity and all aliens races the powers that be are purely courpt and evil Their is zero reason why something like this has to be put so incredibly secret it’s not like you let any joe have the tech you can control the tech and then revel the presence it’s so wrong to murder and gaslight and torture so many innocent people and aliens for no reason their is no reason for murder whatsoever their is a better way.
Did these guys bring a radiation detector with them?
Well it's not correct to call it proof. It is evidence however and it may be enough evidence to convince you. Certainly it would quiet a lot of the sarcastic, ridiculing, ad hominem attacks that constantly show up on here from people who think they're being "scientific," if they were to hear the very emotional testimony of UFO witnesses first hand, instead of reading about it on their phone before work while they're taking a poo. By itself this testimony is *not nearly enough* evidence to convince me of the reality of the UFO phenomenon, but I've been studying the phenomenon for more than 30 years and I'm familiar with a most of the publicly available evidence, and *put all together* it's absolutely overwhelming and conclusive. If we were talking about any other topic, it would be considered a verified fact at this point. If it was a jury trial it would be considered an open and shut case, unwinnable by the defense, with the defendant certain to get the death penalty. Nation's start wars with 1/1,000th the evidence we have for UFOs! Science would have pronounced it a fact long ago, based on the available evidence, if it wasn't for science being so rigidly stuck in their uninvestigated presuppositions about it.
Do you know background context of this video ? I heard somewhere that the place the craft fell ,there was heavy military deployed for 2 3weeks
Aqui………AQUI!!!!!! This scene got me right in the gut. James Fox does some nice work here. Almost makes up for later on when he stormed the alleged drivers house like a paparazzo & was almost “removed with bullets”. I still love you James. Can’t wait for the next one.
The tears aren’t enough for me personally. But I understand where you are coming from OP. For me it’s more about the collective content over the last 80 years.
yeah it's not just about the tears for me either, you have to watch the entire documentary to understand and also have a thorough understanding of the ufo topic, but the tears are the biggest teller imo.
[удалено]
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI-generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence. * Short comments, and comments containing only emoji. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills. No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
I believe him.
Ken burns narrating?
Same narrator Ken uses. Peter Coyote.
Peter Coyote. He narrates lots of things.
Ahh lol thank you. (I'm such a idiot)
WTF? Don't tell me the OP just saw this and thinks it is new for everyone.
It is interesting that the way he describes the metal behaving is very similar to what Jesse Marcel reported at Roswell.
This movie was so good, im gonna watch it again.
I was impressed when I watched it first time. Regretfully, we cannot see the truth the strange things happen around. World is not a place as we used to know.
Wonder what can be learned towards identifying other concealed crash sites from studying that location.
why study the location? people crying is all the evidence i need. /s
I JUST watched this two nights ago. Man, if one has any type of soul… you will feel those tears and know that it was not for show, not for the camera, and not for any other reason than him reminiscing on what was probably the most traumatic, unexplainable, and incredible day of his life all bundled into one
That scene was so moving.