The actress, who was born in Roswell, recently sat down for an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
During her recent appearance on the show to promote new TV series Landman, it wasn't long before the conversation turned to the topic of UFOs, not only because Moore is a Roswell native but also because Colbert happens to have a keen interest in the phenomenon as well.
The town, which is situated in New Mexico, is well known for its infamous UFO incident which allegedly saw an alien spacecraft crash-land nearby before being hushed up by the military.
"Something definitely happened," said Moore. "But when I was a kid, it was never spoken about. Never. It just was not ever ever talked about, not even in passing. It was as if it was a secret."
When Colbert pressed her on what she meant by 'something happened', she added:
"I don't know. Well, you know, the largest landing strip in America is in Roswell, so there's a lot of testing that goes on."
"Legally, you can't say anything or they'll take you out," Colbert joked.
"It's possible," Moore replied.
The actress then asked Colbert what it was about the topic of aliens he found so fascinating.
"The possibility there are aliens, or a branch of the military that's been putting out these videos of unexplainable pill-shaped things that go into the water and come out and go from like 0 to 6,000 miles an hour with absolutely no g-force impact - I mean, what?" he said.
"I am not the one with the problem."
You can check out the full conversation for yourself below.
yeah, good point, but I feel what's being discussed here is a little different. For a start, eye witness accounts of something in the sky is not witnessing a crime. Plus reports of mass sightings are normally just stories in themselves IMO. Anyways, what do I know!? ?
Apples and oranges. Courts and science do not operate on the same rules because they do not have the same goals. A court has to reach a verdict about a one-off event that cannot be repeated, so it uses eyewitness testimony even when the evidence is thin. The system is built to settle a dispute, not to uncover universal truth. Science is the opposite. Scientific claims must be repeatable and testable by independent observers. You do not take anyones word for it. If the event cannot be repeated and the conditions cannot be tested, you cannot build a scientific conclusion on it. The legal syst... [More]
I do totally get this. I'm more questioning whether the adherance to such a 'scientifically provable' dogma is kind of not what this forum is about to some degree? Most of us come here to have our fascination with the 'other' titillated - that's surely why this forum exists isn't it? Of course it is crucial to challange complete nonsense (crap generated by AI, complete lies etc), but I don't understand why (here on UM) the need to apply the rigorous scientific method to any and all reports of anything unusual. So what if it can't be proved, replicated or understood?
What is this 'it' you're referring to? I'm assuming 'it' is a story told. ...... 'it' could also refer to solid physical data- but there isn't any.. is there??
Not everyone here approaches things the same way - some of us are more scientifically minded, and others come from a totally different angle. That mix of perspectives is part of what makes UM what it is.
we don't know that. hr could be offering her a ride home. but if he attacks the little girl and kills her then the testimony of the person who witnessed the pickup would surely be very valuable.
Please Login or Register to post a comment.