[Hackers]

Not sure if any of you heard of it, but a normal streamer who doesn't touch the UFO topic spent a long time talking and filming unidentified aerial phenomenon on stream. You'll need to go through large periods of no visual sightings to see them, but YouTubers and Redditors are in the process of compiling highlights.

I am sharing this because the gov of Brazil has now officially reached out to the streamer, related to what he captured on film.

🔐 loading encrypted image…

A man in Campo Largo, Paraná, Brazil documented a series of unusual events on his rural property through a lengthy sequence of Instagram stories that are currently going viral across Brazil.

He states that UFOs are not his usual subject matter and explains that he primarily works with animal rescue and farm animals. Throughout the stories, he repeatedly emphasizes that documenting unusual aerial phenomena is not the type of content he normally creates.

According to him, the incident began earlier in the day when birds, horses, goats, dogs, and other animals on the property became unusually alert and agitated. He recorded the animals' reactions as they focused on areas near the woods and pasture, prompting him to investigate. He initially suspected that a person or animal might be on the property.

Later, he recorded a series of strange sounds coming from the surrounding woods and near his home. He describes the sounds as metallic, growling, scraping, and similar to a rope under tension. At various points, he compares the noise to a rope stretching, a rope snapping, someone choking, breathing, or a metallic vibration. He states that the sound did not resemble any known animal he was familiar with and describes it as one of the most disturbing aspects of the experience.

He also noted unusual activity in the sky earlier in the day, including numerous aircraft and contrails visible across the region, which he wondered might be connected to the later events.

As darkness fell, he recorded a large illuminated object hovering above a nearby mountain and river area. He repeatedly states that the object appeared stationary and remained visible for more than twenty minutes. According to his account, the object was positioned directly above a remote stretch of river and forest where there were no roads, houses, settlements, visible human activity, or known sources of light. He repeatedly emphasized that nobody lived in the area beneath the object and rejected suggestions that it could be a party, event, or other conventional light source.

He describes the object as round, eye-shaped, or disc-shaped, metallic gray in color, thicker in the middle and thinner at the edges. According to his description, it was surrounded by numerous flashing lights displaying blue, green, yellow, orange, turquoise, and red colors. He states that the object emitted no audible sound despite its apparent size and estimated it to be approximately 60–80 meters in length.

He later produced a sketch of the object based on what he observed. In his drawing, he depicts a metallic eye-shaped craft with multicolored lights arranged around its perimeter and a glowing red circular opening, ball, or hole on its underside. He repeatedly emphasizes that the red feature was one of the most noticeable details of the object.

After the main sighting faded from view, he reported seeing a massive red-lit object near the river. He claims the object appeared in the river area before later passing over his property and disappearing. He describes the object as enormous, red in color, and unlike any conventional aircraft he had previously seen.

Throughout his Instagram stories, he repeatedly expressed fear, confusion, amazement, and shock. At various points he states that he believed he was witnessing something extraordinary and struggled to find conventional explanations for what he observed. He repeatedly stated that he did not believe the object was an airplane, drone, helicopter, balloon, or other ordinary aircraft.

He states that he has experienced unusual events before, but says this was the first time he had been able to record and share one so extensively. He repeatedly acknowledged that many people may be skeptical of his account but maintained that he was accurately reporting what he observed.

He later stated that he works as a nurse and emphasized that he had no financial incentive to fabricate the story, noting that this type of content is unrelated to his normal social media activity. He also describes the experience as one of the most beautiful, extraordinary, and life-changing things he has ever witnessed.

In a recent update, the witness stated that he has since been contacted by the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (ABIN). He shared what appears to be an official communication requesting a meeting and referencing guidance regarding possible contacts with international intelligence agencies. The development has generated significant discussion online and has added another unusual layer to a case that was already receiving widespread attention across Brazil.

Original post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1...in_brazil/

English Subtitle version / shorter clip:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1...h_english/

Corroborated sighting from another area, looking at same mountain range:
https://x.com/almengene1/status/20616476...1_&ref_url=

Clip of instantaneous / fast travel of an orb hovering above a house in the background:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments...all_craft/

Sketch:


I think that the fact the streamer doesn't touch this topic is compelling... The fact that others can corroborate the same area & date is compelling... The fact that I and thousands of others have seen these orbs and lights hovering around neighborhoods is compelling...

Don't forget to look up!

[Sam]

Some lights in the distance within the trees? If only he didn't film himself 90% of the time, maybe something would be more believable. The only abnormal thing here is the fact that his bow is strung backwards. What the actual fuck?

[Hackers]

Some lights in the distance within the trees? If only he didn't film himself 90% of the time, maybe something would be more believable. The only abnormal thing here is the fact that his bow is strung backwards. What the actual fuck?

I think him filming all the time actually makes his case much more credible. He isn't out there posting about UFOs, he has other content he produces and this all just sort of happened.

It's kind of like how nobody wants to go outside and stare at the sky for hours like I & my family did for 2024-2025, and then they say they haven't seen anything. Well, no shit lol! I think it's interesting that you are thinking it's less believable because the guy is outside all of the time, but that's actually more believable. It would be less believable if a person who never is outside and never posts videos suddenly came out with a UAP video, but this is the opposite.

I think if you care to look into the various reels floating around right now, you'll see a hovering orb in the distance that then shoots up into the sky very quickly, and think "okay, that is a little abnormal" because we don't have balls of light that hover above houses motionless and silently that then display instantaneous acceleration, which is 1 of the 5 main observables for UAP.

But yeah, it's not 4K quality close-up, so i understand why you are hesitant to care.

One thing I think a lot of people are missing comes down to data. When people see FLIR video or other IR videos, they say "this is just a dot". What they fail to realize is that an IR video is usually much more compelling than a visual, normal video on the visual spectrum.

Half the people (probably) that are anti-UAP / naysayers probably can't even explain joules, momentum, stopping distance, velocity equations, etc. And tbh, that's way more important than what's on camera.

If an object displays certain maneuvers (there are thousands of videos & I have seen this in-person on several occasions) that are not physically possible with our own jets, spaceships, missiles, etc, then there's something unidentified. You don't need 4K cameras or even 720p to prove this. IR and even low quality visual spectrum cameras are often enough to catch maneuvers, as long as depth and size can be determined from location & nearby objects for comparison.

But yeah, sadly people want high-def cameras which are often statistically less accurate ways to film a UAP than a black & white thermal camera or similar... He didn't use IR, but if he did, that would've been great. Fortunately his videos have enough related context to derive a bit about general size/speed/etc, even if they are in the distance. I'll let the internet sleuths continue to dig into this and provide more data.

It's a huge disconnect. For example the UAP disclosure files contain extremely exciting evidence of objects that seem to defy our understanding of physics in space, but to the average layperson, it's just dots on a screen w/ nothing to see. To a scientist, it's evidence of instantaneous acceleration and maneuvers that every single country's public jets simply cannot do.

So I understand where you're coming from, but don't think it's an accurate rebuttal. Yes, he is filming lights in the distance. Yes, he films himself a lot which is exactly why he was able to catch this in action.

I don't buy into the naysayer hype because of what we literally witnessed ourselves. This guy's streams should be investigated fully for sure. Of course, as with anything, he could be lying and trying to go viral for the wrong reasons.

But his claims and descriptions and the short clips where we do see the lights flying off into the air... That's very familiar to me, and I am not hearing him say anything that feels like a lie. His descriptions and parts of his stream align with what we've seen and what many others have.

At some point we'll be able to say that the naysayers are the crazy ones, and there will be a stigma attached to people who deny it. It will take time, but it will happen...

Last thing - for anyone wondering - nothing in this thread is about "aliens". It is unidentified aerial phenomenon. The user above acknowledges that the aerial phenomenon is unidentifiable, so therefor we agree on the basis of this thread. If they were identifiable, we wouldn't be talking about it, would we? Food for thought.

[Sam]

I think him filming all the time actually makes his case much more credible. He isn't out there posting about UFOs, he has other content he produces and this all just sort of happened.

It's kind of like how nobody wants to go outside and stare at the sky for hours like I & my family did for 2024-2025, and then they say they haven't seen anything. Well, no shit lol! I think it's interesting that you are thinking it's less believable because the guy is outside all of the time, but that's actually more believable. It would be less believable if a person who never is outside and never posts videos suddenly came out with a UAP video, but this is the opposite.

I think if you care to look into the various reels floating around right now, you'll see a hovering orb in the distance that then shoots up into the sky very quickly, and think "okay, that is a little abnormal" because we don't have balls of light that hover above houses motionless and silently that then display instantaneous acceleration, which is 1 of the 5 main observables for UAP.

But yeah, it's not 4K quality close-up, so i understand why you are hesitant to care.

One thing I think a lot of people are missing comes down to data. When people see FLIR video or other IR videos, they say "this is just a dot". What they fail to realize is that an IR video is usually much more compelling than a visual, normal video on the visual spectrum.

Half the people (probably) that are anti-UAP / naysayers probably can't even explain joules, momentum, stopping distance, velocity equations, etc. And tbh, that's way more important than what's on camera.

If an object displays certain maneuvers (there are thousands of videos & I have seen this in-person on several occasions) that are not physically possible with our own jets, spaceships, missiles, etc, then there's something unidentified. You don't need 4K cameras or even 720p to prove this. IR and even low quality visual spectrum cameras are often enough to catch maneuvers, as long as depth and size can be determined from location & nearby objects for comparison.

But yeah, sadly people want high-def cameras which are often statistically less accurate ways to film a UAP than a black & white thermal camera or similar... He didn't use IR, but if he did, that would've been great. Fortunately his videos have enough related context to derive a bit about general size/speed/etc, even if they are in the distance. I'll let the internet sleuths continue to dig into this and provide more data.

It's a huge disconnect. For example the UAP disclosure files contain extremely exciting evidence of objects that seem to defy our understanding of physics in space, but to the average layperson, it's just dots on a screen w/ nothing to see. To a scientist, it's evidence of instantaneous acceleration and maneuvers that every single country's public jets simply cannot do.

So I understand where you're coming from, but don't think it's an accurate rebuttal. Yes, he is filming lights in the distance. Yes, he films himself a lot which is exactly why he was able to catch this in action.

Can you find me any high-quality evidence of the things you mentioned that wasn't recorded on a microwave? I've seen some pretty convincing videos, but it's insane how bad the quality is overall of most of the hot topics.

[Hackers]

Can you find me any high-quality evidence of the things you mentioned that wasn't recorded on a microwave? I've seen some pretty convincing videos, but it's insane how bad the quality is overall of most of the hot topics.

Sure, i can send you some links if you want from my own videos, but you need to be prepared to see what will be a circle of white light in the sky, with no details.

One thing I think that's worth mentioning is that in my opinion, these are high quality because in my experience, many of the orbs are in fact just balls of light with no other visuals to see. So I think that's a major problem with how disclosure rolls out...

I am asking genuinely - What constitutes high quality evidence to you? If for example I send you a video of suspected plasma balls following the ISS or a NASA ship, and the official explanation is paint chips/debris, but one of them is coming from behind the ship and traveling faster than the ship, and far past the ship - is that evidnece? Because it's a white spec with no details, but at the end of the day, it stumps astronauts and physicists because a paint chip from the ship itself can't be traveling from behind the ship, faster than the ship, and past the ship by the laws of physics/motion we know about... But this would just be a low quality video recorded on a microwave.

One of my videos for example is of a ball of light above the clouds & below our plane. This can be suspected as parallax with another plane, and my video can't disprove that unfortunately, but can tell you honestly that we flew over 1 of them and encountered the 2nd all in about 20 seconds or so before we started recording, and it was very obvious to us that it was a ball of light shining in every direction.

Another video of mine, again - probably microwave quality - because it's a recording of a light source in a dark sky, which is hovering for a few minutes and pulsing before it does its iconic shift to a blinking "drone/plane like" look as it picks a direction and flies.

I guess my main point is to ask what constitutes high quality evidence?

If for example you go try to record Venus, or a star - what does your video look like? Probably microwave quality, but you have recorded a 4K video from your phone, of a real star.

And that right there is the biggest problem. A lot of these things are emitting lights, or are perhaps light itself. So it's very, very difficult, or near impossible to record a video of these to the degree the world wants. Even military tech has to go to IR to get better visuals because otherwise it's just a distorted light source on cam.

[Sam]

Sure, i can send you some links if you want from my own videos, but you need to be prepared to see what will be a circle of white light in the sky, with no details.

One thing I think that's worth mentioning is that in my opinion, these are high quality because in my experience, many of the orbs are in fact just balls of light with no other visuals to see. So I think that's a major problem with how disclosure rolls out...

I am asking genuinely - What constitutes high quality evidence to you? If for example I send you a video of suspected plasma balls following the ISS or a NASA ship, and the official explanation is paint chips/debris, but one of them is coming from behind the ship and traveling faster than the ship, and far past the ship - is that evidnece? Because it's a white spec with no details, but at the end of the day, it stumps astronauts and physicists because a paint chip from the ship itself can't be traveling from behind the ship, faster than the ship, and past the ship by the laws of physics/motion we know about... But this would just be a low quality video recorded on a microwave.

One of my videos for example is of a ball of light above the clouds & below our plane. This can be suspected as parallax with another plane, and my video can't disprove that unfortunately, but can tell you honestly that we flew over 1 of them and encountered the 2nd all in about 20 seconds or so before we started recording, and it was very obvious to us that it was a ball of light shining in every direction.

Another video of mine, again - probably microwave quality - because it's a recording of a light source in a dark sky, which is hovering for a few minutes and pulsing before it does its iconic shift to a blinking "drone/plane like" look as it picks a direction and flies.

I guess my main point is to ask what constitutes high quality evidence?

If for example you go try to record Venus, or a star - what does your video look like? Probably microwave quality, but you have recorded a 4K video from your phone, of a real star.

And that right there is the biggest problem. A lot of these things are emitting lights, or are perhaps light itself. So it's very, very difficult, or near impossible to record a video of these to the degree the world wants. Even military tech has to go to IR to get better visuals because otherwise it's just a distorted light source on cam.

I just want evidence where I don't have to count pixels to understand what I'm looking at. These videos don't exist.

[Hackers]

I just want evidence where I don't have to count pixels to understand what I'm looking at. These videos don't exist.

I think then the problem is with your expectations, not the abundance of evidence. You don't need to look at details or count pixels for certain maneuvers when the maneuvers themselves are physically impossible with all known metals on Earth (g-forces would rip them apart).

But for sightings that don't display those maneuvers, then yeah, the details do matter more. But my main point is that you are ignoring some of the most crucial evidence because they don't look cool enough for you, but are cool enough to be superior to all known flight maneuvers any country's best pilots can do - and this goes back almost a century, not just in the last few years.

I think for example if you look at the Palomar observatory data with a different mindset, you might say "huh, why are there satellites or objects orbiting around Earth before mankind launched its first satellite into space?"

> Them not being detailed and "just dots on a screen' isn't relevant. They are still detectable objects in space, years before we launched the first satellite, and observed around Earth and then they leave, which rules out a normal orbiting object. There were 9 of them if I remember correctly, out of thousands of tracked objects. 9 of them appear to have freedom of movement, no official orbit, and were tracked prior to Sputnik.



Anyways yeah, it's just a matter of expectation and what you are looking for, and how realistic it is to ask for it. Unfortunately consumer cameras are not going to get the quality you want, but that doesn't mean you should ignore all evidence. There's just no way to accurately film an object from a modern phone when the object itself is high in the sky and traveling thousands of miles per hour in some cases. This is why IR video and other formats are more reliable than visual spectrum camera.

You are basically trying to discredit the entire UAP disclosure movement because cameras that are capable of actually recording this in the detail you want just don't exist, or aren't anywhere close to affordable for normal people.

Your expectation would require every observer to have the equivalent of a military-industrial telescope camera, on hand, ready to use, in events that often only last seconds or minutes. And like the star/planet photography problem, pointing even a high end camera at a star in the sky is not going to yield the data you want because it's a light source... and so are the orbs (emitting or reflecting, either way).

[Sam]

I think then the problem is with your expectations, not the abundance of evidence. You don't need to look at details or count pixels for certain maneuvers when the maneuvers themselves are physically impossible with all known metals on Earth (g-forces would rip them apart).

But for sightings that don't display those maneuvers, then yeah, the details do matter more. But my main point is that you are ignoring some of the most crucial evidence because they don't look cool enough for you, but are cool enough to be superior to all known flight maneuvers any country's best pilots can do - and this goes back almost a century, not just in the last few years.

I think for example if you look at the Palomar observatory data with a different mindset, you might say "huh, why are there satellites or objects orbiting around Earth before mankind launched its first satellite into space?"

> Them not being detailed and "just dots on a screen' isn't relevant. They are still detectable objects in space, years before we launched the first satellite, and observed around Earth and then they leave, which rules out a normal orbiting object. There were 9 of them if I remember correctly, out of thousands of tracked objects. 9 of them appear to have freedom of movement, no official orbit, and were tracked prior to Sputnik.



Anyways yeah, it's just a matter of expectation and what you are looking for, and how realistic it is to ask for it. Unfortunately consumer cameras are not going to get the quality you want, but that doesn't mean you should ignore all evidence. There's just no way to accurately film an object from a modern phone when the object itself is high in the sky and traveling thousands of miles per hour in some cases. This is why IR video and other formats are more reliable than visual spectrum camera.

You are basically trying to discredit the entire UAP disclosure movement because cameras that are capable of actually recording this in the detail you want just don't exist, or aren't anywhere close to affordable for normal people.

Your expectation would require every observer to have the equivalent of a military-industrial telescope camera, on hand, ready to use, in events that often only last seconds or minutes. And like the star/planet photography problem, pointing even a high end camera at a star in the sky is not going to yield the data you want because it's a light source... and so are the orbs (emitting or reflecting, either way).

You're missing my point. I'm not ignoring the data because it doesn't look like a sci-fi movie, I'm questioning it because low-quality data is unreliable. A dot on an old photographic plate or a thermal camera can be a dozen different things, from a system error to atmospheric junk. If these things are truly flying laps around our best jets, there has to be something better than a blurry pixel. What’s the absolute highest-clarity evidence available right now that proves your point?

Take this thread for example, the man is recording himself 90% of the time, and the actual 'evidence' is just a distant building in the trees with the lights on. I could go into the woods with my friends tonight and shoot a higher-quality, more convincing video than this.

People always bring up the evidence, but it's always recorded on a toaster. The camera is shaking so violently it looks like they're filming during a 9.0 earthquake. You can't even tell what you're looking at.

[Hackers]

You're missing my point. I'm not ignoring the data because it doesn't look like a sci-fi movie, I'm questioning it because low-quality data is unreliable. A dot on an old photographic plate or a thermal camera can be a dozen different things, from a system error to atmospheric junk. If these things are truly flying laps around our best jets, there has to be something better than a blurry pixel. What’s the absolute highest-clarity evidence available right now that proves your point?

Take this thread for example, the man is recording himself 90% of the time, and the actual 'evidence' is just a distant building in the trees with the lights on. I could go into the woods with my friends tonight and shoot a higher-quality, more convincing video than this.

People always bring up the evidence, but it's always recorded on a toaster. The camera is shaking so violently it looks like they're filming during a 9.0 earthquake. You can't even tell what you're looking at.

You are wrong about your assumptions for plates, thermals, etc. That's my point... You keep referring to visual spectrum observables like what they look like, pixels, etc. That's not how this works for valid data taken from systems that aren't focused on visual spectrum data. Heat signatures for example are blurry, but can be tracked accurately.

The people dismissing a lot of evidence as just a dot on the screen probably aren't aware of how this actually works, what's isolated on the snapshot, etc.

But you're right that the discussion of IR data is completely separate from this Brazil UAP livestream.
I don't think he has better than that, and you're not going to get conclusive evidence of anything anomalous from his videos alone. I think looking at it as just 1 person out of 10s of Thousands of observers showing the same is worth considering though.

I know you're super obsessed with visual spectrum cameras while seeming to think that certain systems can't differentiate between a large mass emitting light, reflecting light, or space junk... but that's a false assumption. They can, and do.

You keep saying you aren't dismissing perfectly valid data, but then you keep coming back to these statements:

If these things are truly flying laps around our best jets, there has to be something better than a blurry pixel

Blurry pixels in certain IR systems are still 100% perfectly capable of being acceptable evidence of an object that can maintain altitude for X time, and go Y speed, and pull off Z maneuvers.

You literally keep proving my point. You do not know enough about how these systems work and keep referring to things as blurry pixels, etc. AKA the visual spectrum.

Arguably the visual spectrum is one of the least important aspects of UAP evidence, in terms of determining it's unidentified and performing maneuvers we cannot. In fact, I'd say visual spectrum media is probably the least reliable due to illusions that are less likely with good IR/thermal/other wave or frequency tracking.

The only reason it matters is because the public wants to see things easily and doesn't understand non-visual spectrum data.

For example LiDAR is far more accurate than cameras, but the public will probably never accept a LiDAR data dump of a building, they'll want a photo to "believe in it" and that's cute I guess.

I also want to point out the irony...

You are asking for definitive proof and high quality video that UAP are real.
In other words, you want to identify an unidentified object.
And even when people can show you 1000s and 1000s of things they cannot identify, you will not believe they are unidentified until they are identified.

GOT IT.

Technically we agree. The Brazil farmer guy recorded an unidentified aerial phenomenon.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

[Sam]

You are wrong about yoru assumptions for plates, thermals, etc. That's my point.

The people dismissing a lot of evidence as just a dot on the screen probably aren't aware of how this actually works, what's isolated on the snapshot, etc.

But you're right that the discussion of IR data is completely separate from this Brazil UAP livestream.

I know you're super obsessed with visual spectrum cameras while seeming to think that certain systems can't differentiate between a large mass emitting light, reflecting light, or space junk.

You keep saying you aren't dismissing perfectly valid data, but then you keep coming back to these statements:

Blurry pixels in certain IR systems are still 100% perfectly capable of being acceptable evidence of an object that can maintain altitude for X time, and go Y speed, and pull off Z maneuvers.

You literally keep proving my point. You do not know enough about how these systems work and keep referring to things as blurry pixels, etc. AKA the visual spectrum.

I'm not obsessed with anything, just bored of reading rage-bait content that provides no significant evidence of anything. The guy is a content creator with over 100k followers who spent an entire day pushing a completely staged narrative.

[Hackers]

I'm not obsessed with anything, just bored of reading rage-bait content that provides no significant evidence of anything. The guy is a content creator with over 100k followers who spent an entire day pushing a completely staged narrative.

How is this rage bait content? I'm not rage baiting anyone. If anything, you are. There's an abundance of evidence of UAPs around the world and tinfoil hat conspiracists like yourself are claiming they don't exist. It's bullshit and honestly, you must live under a rock. I've been posting about this for years now on HF anyways, i had my own sightings, I don't need videos online to prove anything to me.

He is a content creator at his place and he noticed something that was peculiar and recorded it for us. Why is that unbelievable?
Do you think I was outside looking for UAP when I saw UAP? No.
Do you think all of the military videos were specifically hunting for UAP, and then all the soldiers lied? No.

People record UAP while doing other things, and recording other things... ALL THE TIME. In fact, I'd say it makes up most of the evidence actually because there are more people recording in the right place & right time than there are UAP believers looking for them.

[Sam]

How is this rage bait content? I'm not rage baiting anyone. If anything, you are. There's an abundance of evidence of UAPs around the world and tinfoil hat conspiracists like yourself are claiming they don't exist. It's bullshit and honestly, you must live under a rock. I've been posting about this for years now on HF anyways, i had my own sightings, I don't need videos online to prove anything to me.

He is a content creator at his place and he noticed something that was peculiar and recorded it for us. Why is that unbelievable?
Do you think I was outside looking for UAP when I saw UAP? No.
Do you think all of the military videos were specifically hunting for UAP, and then all the soldiers lied? No.

People record UAP while doing other things, and recording other things... ALL THE TIME. In fact, I'd say it makes up most of the evidence actually because there are more people recording in the right place & right time than there are UAP believers looking for them.

You know what? You're completely right. Tonight I'm heading into the woods with some cheap LEDs to set up my own fake video. That way gullible people like you can click on it and boost my views. Gotta dig out my old phone so we can count the pixels and have no fucking idea what we are looking at.

Show me actual proof, not just words. I've asked multiple times now. I'm not here for conspiracy theories.

[Hackers]

You know what? You're completely right. Tonight I'm heading into the woods with some cheap LEDs to set up my own fake video. That way gullible people like you can click on it and boost my views. Gotta dig out my old phone so we can count the pixels and have no fucking idea what we are looking at.

Show me actual proof, not just words. I've asked multiple times now. I'm not here for conspiracy theories.

I'm not gullible at all. I was just linking to a livestream that was going viral and had an official government response. If there wasn't an official letter sent to him, I would have not posted this.

I have my own sightings in which we saw things like a light source/orb zipping across the entire horizon (day time, blue sky except for 1 cloud at start) in a second flat, coming to a full stop, and then coming back the way it came with 0 acceleration/deceleration time and NO curvature / turning when it stopped & started again. That's something our current jets, missiles, and spaceships cannot do. It would literally rip them apart from g-forces to stop and start like that at that speed, and we can't go that far/fast.

Right after that, we saw a small cloud moving quickly across the blue sky towards the only other visible cloud (where spark of light had came from & returned to).

When the small cloud got closer to the bigger long cloud, the small cloud whisped around as if it was distrubed.

A bronzeish spherical object with darker stubs on either side came out and flew around, staying at its exact angle / axis / facing the same way the entire time, no matter which direction it moved in.

I don't care what you think or what videos online show or don't show. I know what we saw is not currently possible with public tech / ships / jets / missiles for the first part of the sighting, and I know that seeing a sphere with no wings (stubs were very small) use a cloud for cover around itself is also very odd.

Take it as you will. I don't expect you to believe me, but that's a 100% true experience and no matter how much you want a video if it, all I can offer is my own story.

[Sam]

I'm not gullible at all. I was just linking to a livestream that was going viral and had an official government response. If there wasn't an official letter sent to him, I would have not posted this.

I have my own sightings in which we saw things like a light source/orb zipping across the entire horizon (day time, blue sky except for 1 cloud at start) in a second flat, coming to a full stop, and then coming back the way it came with 0 acceleration time. That's something our current jets, missiles, and spaceships cannot do.

Right after that, we saw a small cloud moving quickly across the blue sky towards the only other visible cloud (where spark of light had came from & returned to).

When the small cloud got closer to the bigger long cloud, the small cloud whisped around as if it was distrubed.

A bronzeish spherical object with darker stubs on either side came out and flew around, staying at its exact angle / axis / facing the same way the entire time, no matter which direction it moved in.

I don't care what you think or what videos online show or don't show. I know what we saw is not currently possible with public tech / ships / jets / missiles for the first part of the sighting, and I know that seeing a sphere with no wings (stubs were very small) use a cloud for cover around itself is also very odd.

Take it as you will. I don't expect you to believe me, but that's a 100% true experience and no matter how much you want a video if it, all I can offer is my own story.

You are completely delusional. It's incredible how you post the same stupid threads on a regular basis. It's even more amusing when people reply asking you the same questions I did, only for you to respond with walls of text instead of any actual evidence. You keep posting rage-baiting content that leads to absolutely nothing because you just repeat yourself rather than sharing the evidence you apparently have so much of. The fact you believe anything the government is telling you makes this even more amusing.

Please stop posting more threads about UAPs in the future. You clearly have a screw loose, and it's extremely aggravating trying to get anything out of you that isn't recycled words putting us at a dead end.

This is after the SRPP was deleted, so I'm actually concerned to how many threads you had in there which we cannot see listed.
Spoiler (Click to View)

Your next post better have significant evidence because I'm not going to ask again for the fifth time.

[Hackers]

You are completely delusional. It's incredible how you post the same stupid threads on a regular basis. It's even more amusing when people reply asking you the same questions I did, only for you to respond with walls of text instead of any actual evidence. You keep posting rage-baiting content that leads to absolutely nothing because you just repeat yourself rather than sharing the evidence you apparently have so much of. The fact you believe anything the government is telling you makes this even more amusing.

Please stop posting more threads about UAPs in the future. You clearly have a screw loose, and it's extremely aggravating trying to get anything out of you that isn't recycled words putting us at a dead end.

This is after the SRPP was deleted, so I'm actually concerned to how many threads you had in there which we cannot see listed.
Spoiler (Click to View)

Your next post better have significant evidence because I'm not going to ask again for the fifth time.

I'm going to post a UAP thread, and another, and another. Shut the fuck up, honestly.

Your tinfoil hat conspiracy that UAPs don't exist is mindnumbingly stupid.

Please prove to me that UAPs don't exist by providing crystal clear video of every day in every place, proving that NOTHING is unindentified in the air.

My case is easy to prove. Thousands of unidentified objects have been recorded.

You're just way too daft to realize that by the nature of UNIDENTIFIED objects, they are in fact... UNIDENTIFIABLE. As-in you can't prove the lights over that house are a helicopter or a plane, the same way you can't prove they're a flying car, or a bird, or a drone, or a missile.

Guess what that makes it... a UAP... Unidentified. Fuck, it's not hard to understand man. You are treating me like I am claiming aliens exist. I'm just saying that UAP exist.

Lets try it this way:

Show me video evidence that the Brazil farm is actually just a drone, helicopter, or plane.
You can't...

How can you prove that it's nothing weird? Can you prove it? Nope. Where's your evidence that the Brazil farm is a hoax? We have videos of lights above his farm, flying off into the sky. But we don't have video proof that he has lied about this.

So the burden of proof is on you.

Your next post better have video proof that proves beyond a doubt that the Brazil livestream was faked, or shut the fuck up.