It was a stupid comment because it is completely wrong. I'd like to proclaims myself as one of the stronger "skeptics" as you like to put it, and I did not go for the Sorroco explanation. To my experience, Anthony Bragalia is very loose with his facts. I cannot say I believe aliens landed, but I cannot say this is the answer to the conundrum either. That Lier was involved does not do the ET angle any favours either.
Now if this is so off the wall, what is the big red flag? Why is this explanation implausible? Where do you see the problem?
Here is the clip containing the testimonies from the guy that saw the UFO and the girls (Valquiria, Katia and Liliana) who saw the creature. Their description is very specific and they described it has having three toes and strange bright red eyes.
The military activity in the woods is also described. Soldiers carrying canvas bags one with something moving inside, the other containing something but not moving. One of the soldiers died shortly afterwards. The military denied he was not involved in the operation but his sister testifies that he was.
The incident at the zoo is described where a woman made another sighting of a similar creature. Her namme is Donna Terezinha Clepf and her testimony is also very clear. The description of the eyes is consistent with that of the three girls. Strangely a number of animals at the zoo died.
Two nurses and a doctor are alleged to have seen the creature in the hospital where is was later removed by the military. There testimony unfortunately is not on record. The reason apparently is because they were threatened as were the fireman involved.
Another woman was bribed to silence with money. Her testimony is on record. Her name is Luisia Helena da Silva.
We are fortunate to have a number of first hand witness testimonies here in this clip who either testify to seeing the craft or the creature itself. A number of other witnesses were involved however these allegedly have either been threatened or bribed into silence. We also have the death of a young military officer that has never been satisfactorily explained.
This single clip represents the best evidence in this entire case. This clip refutes any subsequent report into the case and should be watched before any conclusion is drawn.
Edited by zoser, 31 October 2012 - 08:34 AM.