# data[].attributes.body
I am more likely to trust the pilots that had that experience since they are more likely to come into contact with flying objects. The 4 crewmembers in the video actively tried to find out what happened using the equipment they had and still could not identify the object. Even though the other civilian had great conviction on what he saw, his testimony alone doesn't feel like enough to justify that UFO's exist. It's less likely that one person would spot a UFO without any equipment or elevation compared to a jet manned by trained individuals and with tracking hardware.

# data[].attributes.body
Honestly it is hard to say which source can be trusted more, when it comes down to it all you re doing is whos word do you trust more. In the first video they try to show some type of evidence with a "target finder". The first guy I don't trust as much as the UFO guy. The UFO guy has most likely seen UFOs before and this is proven because he supports it with saying it could have been a hallucination or maybe not.
-The pilot also says he isnt a UFO guy and doesn't believe in them, which makes me believe he has been changing his argument to make himself seem not crazy

# data[].attributes.body
The 1st, approached it very logically where all of them were having a round table conversation.  Additionally they voiced the counter argument and their own skepticisms that if there hadn’t been a handful of people who had all see it, the probably wouldn’t have believed it was a UFO.

The 2nd video is a single person who seems a bit of an airhead and confesses to hallucinations.

# data[].attributes.headline
I think that the first video is the most reliable just do to the fact there was more than one person who saw it happen. Also they had video of what was happening. Not only that the interview seemed to be more structured meaning it was more believable instead of a random guy in a store who is unsure of where he wants to travel 

# data[].attributes.subject
I think that the first video is the most reliable just do to the fact there was more than one person who saw it happen. Also they had video of what was happening. Not only that the interview seemed to be more structured meaning it was more believable instead of a random guy in a store who is unsure of where he wants to travel 

# data[].attributes.body
I found the second video to be the most reliable because the guys eyes seem to open right away when he was asked the question about the UFOS existing. He has an exciting attitude about it and seems passionate to go back and look for them. By the look in his eyes and the tone of his voice, it looks like he wants to show an experience he has had. He also tried to recall locations such as Arizona because he thinking back on this topic specifically and is confident in what he has to say

# data[].attributes.body
First video:
- i would trust them because they look more professional and like they would understand the slim possibilities of even seeing something like that to begin with, let alone distinguish it to actually be a UFO
- people who are in similar professional fields will usually do anything to disagree with everything that does not follow science
- so the fact that they’re saying something and being interviewed about it makes me want to believe them more

# data[].attributes.body
I would trust the first video as possible proof because it’s coming from a source (60 minutes) that has legitimate interviews. The second video takes place in a grocery store and the person being interviewed didn’t provide anything of substance... we just know “he’s been out there man” and that he’s hallucinating all the time.

# data[].attributes.body
I would find the first one more reliable because these are people who “experienced firsthand” the aliens. Not only was it 2 people who witnessed it, but there is distorted video footage which reinforces the reliability. Opposed to the guy who his just speaking from what he saw, saying that he was maybe hallucinating and sounds a bit delirious.

# data[].attributes.body
I would trust the first video. I would trust it because it has some video proof of it, while in the second video its just a guy saying they're out there. I also believe video one because there is four of them that can back up what the guy saw while the second video does not have anyone who could back him up.

# data[].attributes.body
I would trust the first video, with multiple witnesses being able to retell the story. There also was some footage to go along with their stories, which helped support it. The overall setting seems more reliable as well. “The UFO Guy” explicitly said he hallucinates while flying so I’m not sure how credible his story truly is.

# data[].attributes.body
I would trust the second video with the ufo guy. Most of the time I think bigger shows or "well-known" people can have a certain agenda they are trying to push. While the ufo guy was just stating what he saw and believed. He is less likely to have a hidden agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
It is more easy to trust the video from the UFO guy. He is speaking from eyewitness and first hand accounts opposed to the 60 minutes interview being more scientific and hard to understand. The UFO guy is totally genuine with no reason to lie, whereas the man on 60 minutes who is getting paid to discover scientific wonders has far more motivation to lie and fabricate a crazy phenomenon.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the 1st one. It looks formal. The guy in the 2nd video seems like he is high on weed.

# data[].attributes.body
I am more likely to trust the second guy more because he has no reason to make it up or lie about it. He also seems like someone who doesn’t care enough to make it enough and is genuinely just talking about what he saw. The first video could be more trustworthy to some people but I think they have a motive to make something like this up to draw attention to this matter.

# data[].attributes.body
I trust the first video more since 4 people from air force one saw the UFO, but the second man seemed so confident and genuine that it makes me want to believe him too.