MovieChat Forums > Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFOs (2005) Discussion > Waste of money

Waste of money

posted 18 years ago by mystreT
17 replies | jump to latest

I just ordered this off OnDemand and what a waste of money. Now I'm not one to ridicule believers, to me this is just another form of religon. No need to make fun of someones beliefs.

It's just that this was boring. The "proof" they show is somewhat suspect, and the interview is boring. I thought (naively) that an hour and a half inteview with DA on UFOs would be interesting. NOPE. I did house cleaning while it was on. I don't know David Sereda's background but it doesn't seem to be in film making. If I remember correctly he said this film was conceived after a similar conversation between him and DA. Well, I've had many interesting conversations on myriad of topics, not one would make a film.

They did talk and interview briefly that scientist in Canada that is levitating objects. I've seen the video on the web and it does seems interesting (especially if it's not a hoax). I wish they would have spent more time on him.

Stay away.

I'm just too stubborn to ever be governed by enforced insanity....BD

[–] snout4life 18 years ago

Yeah, it's a waste..it's all opinionated and he doens't support anything with actual facts. Some of the examples he showed of UFO's and how there were no logical explanations are complete BS, I've seen investigations into some of these "sightings" and each of them were not UFO's but proven to be natural phenomenon. For example those dots picked up on infra red by the mexican military were just flames from an oil rig. To the naked eye you can't see the flames but IR is much more sensitive to pick these things up.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] boognish-6 18 years ago

I don't even know why a non-believer would want to watch this movie, or any other UFO documentary. It's like a vegetarian ordering meatballs for lunch. Of course it's going to be a waste of money!

I have one question for skeptics who watched this film: What did you think of Gordon Cooper (the astronaut)? Would you consider him a delusional nut-case?

[–] mystreT 17 years ago

I never called anyone a delusional nut case. I am a skeptic on UFOs, not an a**hole. I just have a different belief than Gordon Cooper does.

I believe there is life in many places in the whole of existence, I just don;t think they are visting us.

And my point was this was a terrible movie/documentary. While I may not believe, I do find the subject very interesting. I've seen a couple of documentaries on the subject, some good, some not so much. This one was horrible becasue of the film making.

btw, the vegitarian meatball comment, pretty funny. I chuckled. Though I don't know if it fits. In this simile, I'm more of a non-redmeat eater, not a vegatarian.

I'm just too stubborn to ever be governed by enforced insanity....BD

[–] reverendtom 17 years ago

Note to believers: if UFOs are not in fact your religion, you have to prove their existence with cold, hard facts. Not one sided gibberish like this film and what you spew here. I'm a skeptic only because no hard scientific data has come to light that proves that alien life forms are driving their Cessna's to our little planet. Of course the idea that there is life out there that we don't know about or can even fathom is a perfectly relevant idea. But, until you can prove it to me with factual, scientific data, you are no different than a peracher telling me that there is a heaven and a hell and that Jesus was God's son. That is the problem with "believers" is that they believe without knowing. That's fine, IF it is your religion. If you want to play ball on the scientific field, you better have some evidence, buckos.

[–] miros-5 17 years ago

reverendtom,

Thanks for raising valid points.

A UFO, by definition, is an UNidentified Flying Object. As such, ANY object in the sky which YOU, the observer, cannot identify, is UNidentified and thus a UFO.

For myself, I have seen objects travel across the night sky from one side to the other. Whilst I cannot be sure, I deem these to be Satellites with light reflecting off of them.

BUT, I have also seen similar objects in brightness and size - around the size of a star as seen by the naked eye - move and change directions in the night sky. Now, to My knowledge, satellites do not do this. And as I was unable to identify the object, by definition it is a UFO.

Does that mean it is a Spaceship being flown by life from another planet? No. It means I saw an object I was unable to identify.

Now... about needing Evidence to believe something. As things stand, we take all manner of things on Faith. I have never been to India. As such, I must take it on faith that the country exists and that all accounts of its existence are real and not fabricated. I must also take on faith the moon exists and isn't an hallucination or some floated object created by man to Trick people. And that any moon dust and moon rocks are real and not further fabrication. See? Any Evidence must also be taken On Faith as being real and not fabricated. At some point, it always comes down to believing something on faith. Even if that something is what we think our eyes are seeing.

Example: I am sure you take it on faith that I, the writer of this post, am a real live breathing human being with an ancestoral past and a current life in which I interact with other human beings - instead of, a generated computer intelligence housed in a computer somewhere in Area 51 or some other underground facility, that has the ability to go Online and interact with others as if I was human. Fact is, YOU don't know for sure at this stage, and at this moment have no Evidence to suggest either way. BUT, you take it on Faith that I am actually a human.

[–] livingdead70 17 years ago

The Mexican Film was flames from an oil rig. Intresting in the fact that in the footage you can clearly see land below on parts, as they traking drug dealers across land, what oil rig is on land ?

[–] snout4life 16 years ago

For your info, the angle that the sensors were aiming at was exactly correspondent to the position of the oil rigs from the planes location at the time, and these rigs weren't on land...

[–] livingdead70 15 years ago

Snout how do you know that ? The video looks like its over land to me, Ive never seen a clear shot of it .........
tre

[–] dannynsk 15 years ago

I thought it was cool. After seeing the "Phoenix Lights" first hand I have a whole different outlook on this stuff.

I thought it was pretty bold of him to agree to this documentary

[–] Practice 13 years ago

The "Phoenix Lights" were simply flares in a military exercise. They are dropped from aircraft and they have little parachutes on them so they stay in the air for a long time. That's why they appear one at a time and then stay in the same area until they fell behind the mountain.

Also, the UFOs Aykroyd put so much emphasis on in space near the space shuttle were ice fragments near the lens of the camera and were therefore out of focus giving them a strange look.

I would love nothing more than for friendly aliens to visit this planet, but I have a problem, I live in reality and I'm not gullible. I also choose to use my brain with facts instead of fiction.

This universe of so big and there are so many planets, there must not only be other life but intelligent life out there someplace, the only question is, are they visiting us or will we ever be able to visit them?

If we are being visited, why would they do it by sticking out like a sore thumb? What, as advanced as they are, they don't have cloaking devices? They are going to do the opposite and have all kinds of lights on and fly all stupid?

If they are visiting us, we would never know it unless they wanted us to know, and all of the UFOs you see on TV is either a scam or a visual anomaly from the camera's point of view.

[–] April221968 12 years ago

Maybe you tell Fyfe Symington they were flares because he and hundreds of others saw a craft a mile wide fly over Phoenix.

[–] Practice 12 years ago

Why did they film the string of lights (flares) that was a mile long but no one filmed a ship a mile wide? The ship was only seen by "eyewitnesses" and not filmed. Maybe because those witnesses were either high or lying, and you can't film something that is not there.

[–] April221968 12 years ago

This was 1997, maybe now when every sucker and his dog has a video on his cell phone it would be filmed now. But who's going to run indoors for an old VHS Camcorder when this thing is flying over your head? You're going to be froze to the spot. Are you calling Fyfe Symington a liar or drug user? The guy said he saw it, why would an ex state governor lie about such a thing? It was seen by hundreds and their stories seem to be consistent.

[–] sripley-2 16 years ago

well thought out miros-5, I like the way you think... it is faith in any reasonable conscience mind that keeps the humankind moving forward.
I use the word reasonable because there are those that basically have faith in nothing but their daily activities, then there is most everyone who takes some time to ponder everything else.

[–] Paul_Jay 15 years ago

Excellent post. Few people realize how much they take to be fact on faith alone.

“That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.”

[–] aliendeathchild 16 years ago

I just have a different belief than Gordon Cooper does.

You are well entitled to your opinions, however, what are your credentials to judge a man like Gordon Cooper? Are you an astronaut? Have you been to space? Were you involved in black-ops projects? You can have your beliefs, but take into consideration he was in positions to know things.

I too found the Doc a little disappointing with all the speculative talk, however, I did understand the concept, it was just basically a Doc aimed at getting the thoughts and opinions of Dan Aykroyd. When you're asking for thoughts and opinions you're always going to get speculative answers. He is right thought, it is really fun to think about.

Interested in UFOs?
http://www.angelfire.com/space2/ffury/index.html