News article, man cites UFO crash, little men, etc

Do you believe earth has been visited by aliens from distant planets?

I do. So does Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and numerous accomplished folks.

We can't be all that crazy, can we?

This is interesting, more for the reason it got published in a newspaper in 1952, though not a big one.

https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/ce3/1942-00-00-usa-california.htm

The local newspaper Chieftain, of Pueblo, Colorado, USA, for July 23, 1952, published on page 3, an article that told that in a Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the Vail hotel in Pueblo, Colorado, in July 1952, Mr. Joseph Rohrer, president of the Pikes Peak Broadcasting Co, starled the members with his talk on flyin saucers.

Rohrer said that a three-foot tall pilot of a flying saucer from another planet had been kept alive in an incubator room in the state of California for two years, and progress was being made in efforts to communicate with him by showing him images and teaching him to read and write.

Rohrer sais the saucer pilot was rescued from a "saucer crash" in Montana, and he was the only survivor among crews of three saucers that fell in that state.

Rohrer said dissection of dead pilots from the craft disclosed that the only basic difference in anatomy is that their bone structure was heavier and their stomachs are smaller than ours.

The speaker, alleging that he has been inside one of the seven flying saucers at a California federal base in 1942, said that the mechanisms are giant flywheels covered with metal skins. He stated that the saucers are covered by electrostatic turbines and have cabins in the center. The cabins are pressurized and have an atmosphere containing 30 percent oxygen and 70 percent nitrogen.

Through use of the flywheel, a magnetic field is created which permits the saucers to travel at tremendous speeds, said Rohrer, who became interested in flying saucers as the result of a thesis he wrote on electronic tubes used to measure electronic tubes during his college training in electrical engineering.

"If a magnetic field is opened around the earth it would be possible to travel at about the speed of light," he stated. "They have never tried to fly the saucers that have been captured. They are put together in five sections and come apart easily after the center section is removed."

Rohrer the saucer he visited was 100 feet in diameter and 18 feet thick. "The sleeping quarters for crew members are tubes with caps on the ends and the cabin was pressurized and air conditioned."

The color of flying saucers changes because of the magnetic field set up by the magnetic motors, he said. Reports of a flying saucer seen successively over Colorado Springs, Pueblo and Trinidad have made it possible to estimate its speed at more than 1,000 miles per hour. Six weeks ago a space ship was traced for 600 miles as it flew across Australia and in Seattle, Wash., all electrical appliances were burned out or fuses were blown in one section of town when a flying saucer "turned on power in the vicinity of a power line," Rohrer maintained.

 

Yes, I think that aliens have visited Earth before.

But, this story doesn't have any useful information. I know because you found it. Otherwise, it would have been erased. And, when I say erased I mean erased from history. There are a group of others that can do this.

 

Are these the same folks who 'erased' Bob Lazar's college and personnel records?

 

No. The fundamental issue I have with the idea is that the various claims, assertions and conclusions are vastly different and contradictory and there is literally zero definitive evidence to support any of them.

Not all, no. There is also misinformation, misunderstanding, ignorance, dishonestly and the general human desire to have some kind of explanation for things we don't understand. It isn't as if this is exclusive to beliefs about extra-terrestrials after all. Some of the same phenomena has been or is attributed by different people to things like gods, demons or ghosts.

I'm not sure things being published in the media is necessarily a good basis for confidence in it's validity. Regardless, this appears to just be a third-party report about a single man making some claims at a party.

There is obviously nothing to back up any of his claims, several of the technical statements are questionable and there doesn't seem to be anything to explain how he came to know all of this or why his only apparent response was to use it as the basis of some minor presentation a decade later.

There is also the classic issue of proposed extra-terrestrial aliens being so much like humans. Consider the vast range of lifeforms that have evolved on Earth after all. Any species that evolved on a different planet, under entirely different conditions and environment, would inevitably be as fundamentally different to humans as we are to whales or spiders. If you had beings that appeared almost human, the conclusion that they were extra-terrestrial would be entirely irrational.

 

Every concern you raise has a counter argument. But, of course, you have to be willing to consider it. In your last paragraph, where you assume that aliens, on a different planet, will evolve to look quite different. The answer isn't simplistic, yes or no, it's both. Where we are similar, it's turning out that those aliens are us, we have their dna, and they have, according to them, seeded this planet, have been monitoring it, tweaking our genetic progress over millions of years, and in a sense, we are their 'garden' we are their pet project, so to speak. Of course, that sounds like sci fi, but, it is a valid counter argument. And then there are aliens that look nothing like us, who didn't seed us, but who are collaborating with the aliens that are. so, both yes and no are the answers.

A Phd, tenured historian, now retired, named Dr. David Jacobs, has written two books, "The Threat" and "Walking Among Us'.

He has a side passion, hypnotherapy whose subjects are those who claim to be abducted by aliens, and he admits he is an amateur and that type of evidence is weak. he makes this point and is adamant about it. However, But he also mentions that, of the few thousand hypnotherapy sessions of which he was the therapist, subjects from all walks of life from all over the world over decades, are basically telling the same story, over and over and over again, and he's been doing this for a long time. That, of course, isn't absolute proof, but it is compelling, especially the books, themselves. Jacobs is no dummy, and I invite skeptics to read his two books.

You see, most who have this experience, most assert that they are hoping it's not true, that they are crazy, that they are dreams, that their minds are playing tricks on them, they positively do not want to believe that, in fact, they are actually being abducted by aliens, because, well, it's terrifying. This is a club that very few want to be a member of. when I say 'all walks of life', that is literal, simple people, sophisticated people, waitresses, scientists, lawyers, physicists, and everyone in between, come to Jacobs for sessions to uncover what is happening to them. Jacobs understands 'confabulation' and does not ask leading questions. That might be a mistake others make, but not Jacobs.

So yes, there is a phenomenon in hypnotherapy called 'confabulation', where the subject confuses imagination with actual events. What Jacobs has done, is employ controls to contain this phenomenon, recognize it, and minimize it. With new subjects, confab is a problem on the first few sessions, but it fades as the subjects moves deeper into the subconscious over time. Confab is detectable as the story is changing, and real events are more detectable as the story gets clearer over time, and doesn't change.

What Jacobs has discovered is that Aliens follow bloodlines, abductions are intergenerational almost all subjects are not just abducted once or twice, but from baby all the way up until their 50s or 60s hundreds, if not thousands of abductions over the course of their lives, most to the great detriment and misery of the abductees, who cannot escape from this process, they learn to adjust and live with it. If mom is abducted, her children will also be abducted, her grandmother and grandfather will be abducted. there are very few isolated cases. People are abducted often at night, but often in broad daylight.

If anyone is near during an abduction, they are 'switched off'. If an abductee senses an oncoming abduction and sets up a video recording device, the aliens switch it off. It is clear that the aliens are on a clandestine mission, though no one knows what their agenda is and the aliens are tight lipped about it. Other verifiable details occur, such as when the aliens return the subject to where they were abducted, at times the subject will discover their attire, pajamas, underwear, etc, are put on wrong, backwards, or are wearing clothes that belong to someone else. There have been cases where the subject was returned to the wrong neighborhood, or placed outside the home when the home was locked. There are cases where relatives searched for the subject, and found them again after they were returned. Every subject has 'missing time'. Most people are unaware they are being abducted, and just have symptoms, such as 'missing time'. They will be driving down the road, and the last thing they can remember is they suddenly notice it's dark out, and the clock reads a couple of hours later, and they are a couple of hours late to their destination. Before an abductee is returned, their memory of the event is 'erased' by some process leaving subjects with just flashes of memory, and terrifying dreams. However, memories can be recovered in hypnotherapy.

In each and every case, subjects tell us that the aliens communicate via telepathy, their is no deviation, all of them communicate via telepathy. Their descriptions of aliens is identical, as there are four or five predominant types, but their descriptions do not vary, this has been going on since the early 60s, before Streiber's famous book, 'Communion' was published. Aliens have tractor beams that can pull people through walls, the ceiling. Aliens are removing semen and ova from men and women for the purpose of producing alien/human hybrids for the purpose of installing them on earth, this is happening.

Humans are controlled via neurological engagement by the aliens, who have powerful psychic ability, they can mind control humans. They scan our brains via neurological engagement, and download our entire memory banks. Apparently, they share our memories such that aliens are familiar with our society, where they have actually learned all of our languages. They know all about us, they are fairly well familiar with Humans, their plights, and what they are doing to the planet, which is of great concern to them, It seems to be the driving element for their abductions, to warn humans of impending environmental catastrophe. Some humans have been able to resist the mind control, but most cannot. Humans are recruited, controlled, made to mentor the hybrids so that they can adjust to human society in a process that takes a few years. Aliens have incubatoriums on the space craft, and when a fetus is created, it is implanted in the mother's womb for weeks, and later removed leaving no scars, whereupon the aliens place the grown fetus in the incubatoriums until they are born on the space craft. These 'immaculate conceptions' and subsequent fetus disappearances have, apparently, been documented by doctors, to their astonishment.

The fact that, the fast majority of subjects tell practically identical stories, down to embarrassing details, well, the devil is in the details, and that is what I find compelling. Stories of damaged uterous common who women who have had miscarriages have been reported, yet the female isn't with partner or having sexual relations. Also, people who became seriously ill, were miraculously cured by aliens, where stories of illness and miraculous recovery have been, apparently, documented by doctors, so alien health care has been reported.

Sure, it's easy to trivialize all of this, and most skeptics will. I know it all sounds crazy, incredible, absurd, ridiculous, preposterous, sounds like a nice science fiction story, and they won't even bother to give the books a read. Most people exist in a state of stupor and mediocrity, this cannot be avoided, and of course, this will work to the alien's advantage.

So, my point is, those who are not curious, they will not give Jacob's book the light of day, they will assume it's crazy talk, and those who demand evidence on par with an alien arriving on the White House Lawn and announcing their arrival, those who make that kind of evidentiary demand will never discover the truth, because, for reasons given by the subjects themselves about the alien agenda, that is never going to happen. but, of course, it might. No one knows.

Maybe I'm crazy for believing this, but all I ask, if anyone is curious, is to give Dr. Jacob's book a read. But, without curiosity, people won't bother.

Also, note that I am mindful of the various objections detractors and skeptics will make, as much of what is addressed in Jacob's book isn't mentioned here, there isn't enough room to cover it all with a 16k character limit, but, for whatever objection you will raise, know that there is a plausible counter argument. Yes, there most certainly is. So, the question is, will you be at least curious enough to consider it? Not asking anyone to blindly accept anything, only to look further. Read his books. That is all I ask.

 

Well, counter assertions. Saying that the humanoid nature of aliens is explained by their seeding and manipulating our DNA is just an additional set of unevidenced claims. You talk about similar assertions, such as witnesses to abductions being somehow "turned off" (other than the other cases where you say witnesses noticed the victim missing?) and any recording devices being similarly "turned off" (except, of course, in all the examples of UFO recordings purported to show alien spaceships?). All of this merely builds up an evermore complex set of claims and assertions, none of which are supported by any concrete evidence. It doesn't support your beliefs, only raises more open questions and complications.

I'm sure you're aware of the issues and limitations of hypnotic regression, especially performed by an amateur with a pre-determined conclusion. I'm not really interested in commercial books about this kind of thing since they're obviously written to promote their conclusions (and make money) rather than present any kind of honest scientific assessment. We'd need full, unedited recordings of those hypnosis sessions to properly assess his conclusions of what they really mean. Do you know if they're available (or even existed)?

Note that I never said with certainty that aliens have never visited Earth - your question was about belief. I stand by position that there is no clear hypothesis, no definitive evidence and plenty of alternative explanations of the various claims, events and phenomena attributed to this idea. Therefore, here is presently no reason to believe such an extreme conclusion is the case.

 

Like I said, each and every objection has a plausible counter argument. Put them in a bulleted list, and I will provide it, no problem.

Does that mean I'm correct? No, see, my only point is this, there is a plausible counter argument. Especially your objection ot reading Jacob's book, See, it's not like you think, and that's the point, your assumptions are preventing you from exploration of the possible. And, FYI, historically speaking, UFO books, on the whole, are not a highly profitable biz. Moreover, Jacobs has been performing his services free of charge, for over 30 years. Profit is NOT his motive.

 

Arguments yes, but not evidence. As I said, nothing close to enough to believe the specific assertions you're making, not just about aliens visiting Earth but very specific statements about their nature, capabilities, intentions and actions. Even if the recollections from hypnosis were all accepted on face value, I wouldn't be convinced they would support such detailed and definitive conclusions (after all, if the aliens are so powerful, how can we trust the accuracy of those recollections?).

Well, you stated that you believe and wrote a long post presenting a whole series of statements as truth. One of the many issues with this field of discussion is that constant swing from definitive claims to "why won't you just consider the possibility?".

I wouldn't object to exploring (or at least someone exploring, since it isn't my field) but that should be done from the primary data rather than just his conclusions. That is why I asked about recordings of these hypnosis sessions.

Not highly profitable (non-fiction generally isn't) but still profitable. More profitable than actual scientific research typically is.

 

No, I'm talking about the aliens themselves. If they see that their agents have made it to the front page of the news they will travel back in time and stop the encounter. Then, since there was no encounter a different set of events will play out. History will have been changed.

Personally, I am amazed at the stuff we have in the news now that the aliens themselves have missed.

 

Absolutely, and likely since Earth was hospitable enough for life (possibly almost 4 billion years). The Universe is over 13.5 trillion years old according to estimates and the Milky Way galaxy is perhaps a half trillion years younger than that. Even if life formed on some planetary system 10 trillion years ago and some advanced civilization formed 10 billion years later, that would be more than enough time for such a civilization to develop the technology required to visit other star systems within our galaxy. It took 4.5 billion years from Earth's formation to achieve a civilization that is just scratching the surface of being able to reach into space. Another 10,000 years or less (if we don't go extinct) will be more than enough time to achieve the technology required to travel to the nearest star system within a reasonable time frame. An advanced civilization perhaps 100,000 years ahead of ours should already have that type of technology. Just compare our technology 300 years ago to today. Imagine 300 years from now, never mind 1,000 or 10,000 years from now (again given we don't go extinct).

And that's just within the Milky Way galaxy. There are trillions of galaxies in the Universe, each containing hundreds of billions of star systems.

But aside from the above simple logic, there are literally thousands of accounts of UFOs, visitations, abductions, etc. Some date since the earliest human historical accounts. Granted many (perhaps most) could be dismissed as legends or hallucinations. But many have similar characteristics from all over this planet, especially the tales of abductions and the shape of UFOs. You can dismiss all of them if you want to put blinders on or you can accept that at least some of these accounts are true, that's a personal call. IMO we've been visited by multiple alien species. Also IMO the question "is there life in the Universe" (other than on Earth) is a childish or an ignorant question.

 

I think you're missing the point. The kind of evidence you want, that is never going to happen.
But, similar to the kind of evidence provided in a civil lawsuit, 'a preponderance of evidence', which is to say, not the kind of incontrovitble evidence required in a criminal suit, but evidence nevertheless, when there is a preponderance of it, it is sufficient to convince a jury. In other words, a preponderance of a type of evidence is enough to give the jury a feeling that they can award damages, and they will do this because, unlike a criminal trial, requiring evidence of a higher standard because one's liberty is at stake, no one's liberty is at stake here and so the question becomes, are you willing to look at a preponderance of evidence of a kind that will allow one to form an opinion, leaning favorably to one side over the other?

Most people who are curios and fascinated by the subject will allow that kind of evidence to influence their opinion. Hard core skeptics will not, apparently.

Of course, I will surmise that science will not allow that kind of evidence because it doesn't have the luxury of opinion, though it could, merely my prefacing the statement, "well, we don't have absolute proof, but based on the plethora of overwhelming circumstantial evidence, plus the notion that there are trillions of planets, there might be at least a few whose technologies are so advanced that they would have conquered the problem of distance and whose technologies would have found us, I'm therefore of an opinion that it is more likely that they are here, than it is likely they are not".

I'm willing to to that, but hard core skeptics are not, and given what I know about aliens, they will be the last people on earth to ever know that they are here and visiting humans.

Aliens, on the whole, are operating clandestinely. For the vast majority of abductees, aliens have a way to erase the memories of the abduction event to the abductees. however, we know that, via a skilled hypnotherapist, most often, though not in every case, much of the memories are recoverable, as it is impossible to completely erase memory as it appears to be turning out.

As I stated, the problem of confabulation is detectable and controllable, and which occurs most often in an abductees first sessions with the hypnotherapist, but fades in subsequent sessions. Confab fake memories are fluid and ever changing, where more accurate memories grow more clearer over repeated attempts to recall the same event. Skilled hypnotherapists are trained to deal with this.

Note that of the thousands of hypnotherapy sessions among hundreds of abductees conducted by Dr. Jacobs, Professor Mack, Bud Hopkins, Barbara Lamb, and Dolores Cannon, and other notable hypnotherapists, from abductees from all walks of life all over the world tell basically the same story, down to embarrassing details, not to mention physicals evidence of bodily bruises, triangular marks, scoop marks, scars healed abruptly faster than they normally would, millions of citings by people over the years (concerning ourselves with only the unexplainable), trace evidence left by space craft upon the ground when they land, and in the case of abductees, reportage that aliens give them identical messages to all of these abductees from all walks of life (mostly having to do with how humans are polluting the earth, and they can expect a major event coming soon, and that, ultimately, everyone will 'know their place, and we will all be happy' [when they finally arrive]. IF it were just 'confabulation', the stories would be radically different. Even if you argue 'pop culture' gives them 'ideas' it would not be across the board, not every one would be affected, as most of these people are not the kind of people who are interested in the UFO community or culture and have no knowledge of it. Most of them, as Professor/psychiatrist John Mack tells us, most of them do not want to know that they are abducted, that this is a real phenomenon, they would rather be told they ar just crazy. This is not a club to which most want to be a member. When you scrutinize these facts, dig deeper into the subject, which you would do if you are open minded and curious, you will go through a journey which just might lead you to a more favorable opinion, all the while acknowledging itls not the kind of evidence upon which someone could lose there liberty, metaphorically speaking.

So, no, it isn't evidence you can send someone to jail, using that kind of evidentiary metaphor, but it is the kind of evidence that would persuade a jury by a skilled attorney,. So, it depends if you are a jury person or a hard skeptic person.

You're mistaken if you think I'm offering it as fact. Preface everything I say on the subject with 'consider the possibility that, given such and such, .....", for me to do that on every claim would be cumbersome

Listen to the entire thing, please. Betty and Barney Hill's abduction was pretty much the first well known abduction, and a book, plus a movie was made of it.

Sorry, I just don't buy the notion that many who are sincere on this subject are pulling crap out of their butts solely for money. thats simplistic.
Might you find a few charlatans? Sure, but I'm not stupid, and I think I can tell the difference. The devil is in the details.

Asking for recordings is reasonable. If you google the Betty and Barney Hill sessions, you'll find it, they are the first prominent cases. (see above link)

Years later, Mr Hill left out an embarrassing detail. We didn't find this out until other abductees, over and over and over again, tell us that the aliens are taking ova from females and sperm from males, and years Later, although this detail was ommitted from the book that was published about them and made them famous, he admitted that the aliens removed sperm from him. He begged the publisher to omit this fact because he was embarrassed.

I find it interesting that that detail about Hill was unknown to the other abductees that followed, ever the years, and so this notion that they are influenced by his story is less of an argument.

If you will consider details like that, and a multitude of others, if you are willing to travel the same journey as I have traveled, studying the subject for years, examining thousands of stories, articles, testimonies of military personnel, pilots, engineers, etc., you might come to the same opinion that I hold, that they are here and are, indeed, 'among us'.

But, if you are a hard core skeptic, and ASSUME everyone is a kook, and that there is not wheat anywhere in the chaff, (which is vast over years, there are plenty of charlatans constituting the 'chaff' but there is wheat, if you know how to look and you get a strong sense of how to tell the difference) you'll not be interested and you'll remain a hard core skeptic.

And, regarding my statement:

The kind of evidence you want, that is never going to happen.

IF your rebuttal is that 'there is no evidence for never going to happen',
just know that the abductees who have posed the question to aliens, most of them tell us that the aliens tell them that it is necessary that they are made to be unable to recall the abduction because the cumulative memories of their abductions would wreak havoc on their lives. They also, when questioned, do not tell us why they are doing this. The fact or their memory erasures, that aliens switch of any recording device in the vicinity of the abduction location, leaves me to conclude they are operating clandestinely.

 

I agree, but it was the verifismilar testimony of hundreds of abductees via hypnotherapeudic regression that convinced me.

 

Agreed. All that other stuff I posted is statistical probability. Combine the two and you have strong likelihood. Dismissing it all as kookery is just cognitive dissonance or:

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein

 

Of course it could. If aliens exist exactly as you describe them, it would be perfectly possible for direct evidence of that to come to light, either due to them being discovered or choosing to reveal themselves for some reason (and yes, I saw your post-script on this and it doesn't change anything). It is equally possible for evidence to come to light supporting some different explanation for some or all of the evidence presented here.

Sure, but this isn't a matter of law, it is a matter of science. The law generally doesn't allow for "we don't know" while science does. That is the scientific position on the existence of extra-terrestrial aliens, certainly for the very specific ones you describe in such detail. That remains why my answer to your question about whether I believe remains no. I totally accept that you do believe but that isn't a reason why I (or anyone else) should be expected to agree with you.

That isn't necessarily a good thing. If someone wants something to be true they can convince themselves even if the evidence doesn't necessarily support it. Professional scientists can fall foul of that human failing, so enthusiastic amateurs certainly can.

Skilled hypnotists can also reinforce false memories. That something has come from a hypnotherapy session isn't in itself proof it is true, especially if the hypnosis was performed by someone with a vested interest in a specific conclusion. If hypnosis was that reliable in recovering supressed memories, it would be used much more widely.

I'm aware of plenty of sightings, experience and incidents that are attributed to extra-terrestrial aliens. I'm also aware of many which have been either shown to have mundane explanations or certainly can be reasonably explained by mundane causes. The remainder are of unknown cause but I am not convinced they are anything like as consistent as you would like to believe. Clearly proponents of the alien "hypotheses" emphases those examples which appear to support their pre-determined conclusions and brush aside any which don't.

The problem is you (and you are far from alone in this) continue to make statements as if they are definitive and unquestioned facts. You don't need to preface everything with a statement that it is only your belief but you could mention it at least occasionally and also consider how you word the statements you make.

There is a linked issue with one belief being used as a basis for others, such as the statement of these aliens operating clandestinely subsequently being used as the explanation for so many other things. You have a singular hypothesis here (though you haven't yet presented it as such) so you can't use elements of that hypotesis to support others.

It shouldn't be about others seeking out the evidence. If you (and the authors of these books) are making scientific statements about the sessions, it is on you and them to provide the raw data (that would apply in your legal metaphor too).

I'm not assuming anything here. That is your assumption.

Also, why do you depict scepticism as an entirely negative characteristic? Aren't you being sceptical about the possibility of there being other explanations for at least some of the thing's you're presenting as evidence for the specific type of aliens you're proposing?

 

Of course it could, but, given what is known about them from the data garnered from regressive hypnotherapy thus far, probably not, which was the point. However, they to tell abductees that some day in the future they will announce themselves in a bigger way to earth. But, no one knows what they mean by 'soon'

the law was used as metaphor for degrees of evidence, where, in criminal law, because it means someone's liberty is at stake, conclusive proof is required to establish guilt. Metaphor, capiche? It's not about law. The metaphor of civil law was that a preponderance of evidence would be enough to persuade a jury. IN other words, to hold an opinion leaning one way or the other, a preponderance of evidence if all that is need. So, it depends on who YOU are, are you a scientist needing conclusive proof for your peers, or are you an armchair curiosity seeker? I'm the latter.

So, you're talking 'science', I'm not. I'm just talking let's get to a place where we could say, 'due to the preponderance of evidence and other factors, it is more likely that they are visiting earth with some unknown agenda than not. My case is to that conclusion, only. For you to even agree with me on that point would require you to take a longer journey than you have taken, (that's speculation on my part, but I think I'm probably right on that point ).

Again, scientific proof is not needed to come to that particular conclusion. But, anyone claiming 'there is no evidence for any conclusion or opinion', they just haven't surveyed the field which, by the way, is vast.

I don't expect anyone to do anything, nor did I ever imply it. I'm stating my case, nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree. I've seen enough testimony from abductees, heard them scream in terror, provide excruciating detail, people from all walks of life from all over the world for decades, tell basically the same story over and over and over and over again. That's enough for me to believe in it.

I don't buy the mass hypnosis argument, I just don't. Why? because it's not occurring in one singular event.

I've listened to how some did, and by that fact, they aren't that skilled, or rather, adept.
but that isn't Dr. David Jacobs, and I invite you to read his book. "Walking Among Us" and 'The Threat".

You're making some assumptions in the 'brush aside' department. I'm far more interested in testimony from people who have never been into UFOs, competent professionals, than random citizens. There's plenty of it on Dr Greers 'Disclosure" video.

I do not make such a claim, so please abstain from claiming I do. I could preface every sentence with 'in my opinion' or various disclaimers every time I offer something, but that is cumbersome. Just assume it. I already qualified for and to you on Dr. David Jacob's own admission about the strength of abductee testimony under hypnosis, but there is that 'however...' that should be considered. Why? Because it's all we have. If you can find stronger evidence, fine, we'll run with it, but until then, this is worthy of consideration. You say it isn't, but you haven't considered it, or taken a look, or read Jacob's book. If you don't, then you are making assumptions about what it says, or it's value. However, if you simply are not curious at all, that's another matter.

There is a plethora of evidence to suggest that, at least on this leg of the ET phenomenon ( the abduction leg ) they are operating clandestinely.
What is that evidence? Memory erasure requiring recovery under regressive hypnotherapy.

But I am not, nor is Dr. Jacobs, who is not a scientist, he is a historian. Professor John Mack might be, as he is a psychiatrist, but I have yet to study his material, though I will, soon.

Listen to the audio, and all I ask, is just to listen, see what you think. No one is claiming 'science' here. This is discussion, not hypothesis.

Okay. I thought it might be a good guess.

Well, if you had follow my posts on the subject of skeptics, you'd know I put it into a couple of categories.

1. healthy skepticism, Which is optimistic, but cautious, not easily fooled.
2. Unhealthy skepticism, which is pessimistic, filled with unwarranted doubt and cynicism.

And on #2, there are degrees where the hard core skeptic is at the far end of #2.

Everyone should be at #1, and no one should be at #2.

 

Aren't you directly contradicting yourself there? Your first statement is that these aliens probably won't reveal themselves but your second statement is that they say they definitely will, we just don't know when. This is another example of why you really need some form of defined hypothesis as a basis. Otherwise the goalpost can just be shifted to catch all the different evidence.

You're also basing this all on information that could be flawed or incomplete (due to recovery via hypnosis) and entirely from a source your define yourself as clandestine and secretive. Even if the recollections were flawless, why do you assume the aliens were complete and honest with what they told abductees?

I am a scientist engaging in armchair curiosity regarding a topic outside my core field of expertise. That doesn't mean I don't expect basic scientific principles to be applied when considering this kind of thing.

"Evidence" and "conclusion" are scientific terms. This isn't formal science but it is science all the same. We apply science every day without even thinking about it, when cooking, crossing the road or deciding when to leave the house to get to our appointment on time. What you're trying to do (and again, you are far from alone) is pick and choose between assessing evidence and reaching viable conclusions on one hand but then fudging all of that when those conclusions wouldn't be exactly what you'd like them to be or as strong as you'd like to believe.

I'm not expecting proof, I'm expecting a honest and an accurate consideration of all of the evidence and all of the possible conclusions, not just the specific interpretation of selected evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion.

Note that the conviction of the conclusion people want to believe was a reference to the investigators and believers, not the abductees. You say yourself that a lot of abductees don't (and don't want to) believe they were abducted by aliens until they are convinced of that by those biased investigators.

Lots of people experience similar psychological terror (especially under hypnosis) for a wide range of known causes. And lots of alien encounter and abduction claims actually contain widely different details and hence different investigators reach very different conclusions about the nature of the aliens they believe are out there.

You missed the point. Hypnotists can intentionally reinforce false memories if they choose to. Hypnosis in and of itself is the smoking gun you'd like it to be, again, especially when performed or interpreted by people with a predetermined conclusion.

It isn't an assumption, it is an outright accusation. There is a massive range of UFO/alien experiences, encounters and claims attributed to a massive range of conclusions by different people. You can't reach any one conclusion without dismissing a whole load of different ones. Are you interested in all of the component professionals who assess the evidence and reach different conclusions about its causes, ones that don't involve extra-terrestrial aliens (or certainly not by the specific definitions you're describing here)?

It is how many of your statements come across though, regardless of whether you intend to or not. You could address the specific issue of using one aspect of your beliefs as support for others (such as the claims that the aliens are operating clandestinely to explain away all the different ways they could be otherwise detected).

It would also be better if this entire field was approached more scientifically, such as presenting a definitive hypothesis and then assessing all of the evidence surrounding it rather than working through a selected set of evidence and explaining it in a way to support a predetermined conclusion. There is an obvious reason why believers in the existence of aliens don't want to do that of course.

People not remembering things is not evidence that their memories have been actively wiped. That is a circular argument, especially when there are people suffer similar memory loss in known circumstances of high stress or trauma, even with examples of hypnosis being used to recover them. It could be one part of a hypothesis but you would need more to support your very specific conclusion, even in the casual non-scientific manner you're trying to promote.

You mean "My scepticism" versus "Your scepticism"? Which does your refusal to consider any of the possible alternative explanations (even explanations involving aliens with different nature and motivations) for the various evidence you present fall under?

 

Not really. Given their history, the point is they don't appear to be wanting to make themselves known, in a grand fashion, any time soon, though they've alluded to some future date.

I"m not a scientist, I don't do 'hypothesis'. The few I know who are on the science forum will just say there is no evidence. But they don't appear to be curious enough to investigate the field, they just assume there is no 'wheat in the chaff' so to speak, that the entire field is filled with kooks.

There is no proof in the absolute proof aliens-on-the-whitehouse-lawn sense of evidence, no. But, there are tons of evidence that suggest it. If there were only a modest amount, I wouldn't believe it, but given the amount of it, I'm inclined to believe it. also, for a couple of points of logic, as follows:

There are trillions of stars and planets and untold billions of habitable planets. I should think the odds of there being at leasts a handful of planets with advanced technology that can conquer the problem of interstellar travel in a practical time frame, and whose technology, if that advanced, possess the means to detect other inhabited planets is strong enough to conclude that there is a stronger likelihood they are visiting our planet than not.

The counter to that 'hypothesis' ( if that is what it is, you tell me) is 'why haven't they introduced themselves' and 'why don't we have a decent, high res, photo of them.

Well, there are two plausible reason to counter those questions.

ON the first, they mission on earth is clandestine, for the most part.

On the second, the vast majority of the time they move through the atmosphere cloaking their ships so they are invisible.

Occasionally, they are seen but there are no decent photos. ANd the reaso for that is that up close, electronic devices go haywire ( as reported by pilots encountering them up close, and drivers in cars who seen them up close, their cars quit, cameras don't work, etc. So, that leaves only photos at a distance. So, the only way one can get a photo photo, therefore, is at a distance. What are the odds of someone with a $2400 600mm lens, and a high ISO res camera ( such as the Canon 5D mk IV ) will be walking around with it waiting for a UFO to show up. I have such gear, but I've never seen a UFO in my entire lifre, and I'm not going to be carrying my gear around with me all the time, so I'd have to get mighty lucky to have my gear and be in a place where they often appear, whcih is in rural areas and military/nuclear facilities. But, someone who has the time and money to steak out a spot in a high trafficked UFO zone ought to do that. Not only this, you'd need two cameras, one for 4k video and one for stills. So, about $10k worthy of get on sturdy tripods. If someone would back me I would do it. I'd need enough funds to survive for about a year. To my knowledge, no one with the adequate professional gear is doing this.

Thing is, for years, we heard stories of the giant squid, and we were told it was just myth, until one washed up on the shore. We have legends of UFO crashed ET spacecraft and captured aliens, but, unlike giant squids, the government suppresses what they know about them for national security reasons ( they don't want our enemies knowing about the technology). There are numerous testimonies to this, where subjects are sworn to keep quiet or face dire consequences, they are threatened.

It's true, aliens are notorious for being deceptive to their abductees. But that isn't the point, aliens visiting us, deceptive or not, is the point.
They have powerful psychic abilities. IN each in every case, I know of none that say otherwise in the following points, that they communicate via telepathy and they can inject screen memories into the minds of aliens. In other words, they can make themselves look like humans, or anything they want, which they do to control humans. One abductee ( and this is common ) was taken up to a UFO, placed on a table, and, in a semi paralyzed state, described a beautiful woman mounting him and having sex with him. IN the regressive hypnotherapy session, as the session progressed, the facade of a beautiful woman faded and some sperm extracting machine came into view, and they know how to induce ejaculation. What they do is scan your brain for images, memories, imaginations, of anything they think they can use to decieve you. If you are a fearful person, they will use fear to control you. If you are a new-agey 'love is everything-we-are-all-one' kind of person, they will appear as some kind of loving super being, if you are extremely religious, they will appear as angels ( conforming to what you think they look like). they use abductees mental images to control the abductees, this is very common. They paralyze most people because most people will resist. Only those who welcome the experience, pose no threat, will they allow them to move about freely. For the reports of 'shape shifting' this is a misnomer, they don't actually change shape, they just project that into abductees minds. There are several types of aliens, some scary looking, some that look like us, some are jsut strange looking. The scary looking ones will often project screen images into the abductees minds to cloak what they really look like, and appear human. They have the ability to do this selectively, to some people and not others, or to entire groups.

There are only two groups I know of that are doing this. SETI project and Avil Loeb's Galileo project.

SETI is looking for ET RF transmissions, and they are wasting their time and money.

Avi Loeb is approaching it as an astronomer.

Both are going to run into difficulty for a couple of reasons. SETI is barking up the wrong tree. What happens is that when an alien world achieves a certain stage of evolution, they fade out RF communication and switch to telepathic communication or communication of some other type. This happesn quite soon in terms of the evolutionary scale. There is the problem of synchronicity Think about it. If the period that a developing world has RF communication, it's a small window of maybe some few hundred years before they reach then advance beyond RF communication. So, given that those signals travel at the speed of light, and will reach us millions of years later, so that window of RF era time span must sync up, millions of years later with us, and the odds of that are like winning the lottery. The alien world's RF timespan era would have came and went, long ago, and must sync up, time/distant wise with us. Signals really get small the farther they travel, and they are probably so faint they are not detectable with our equipment.

So, forget SETI, they are barking up the wrong tree. Avi Loeb has the better idea, to use his sophisticated equipment to scan the skies, in broad brush fashion. The reason other telescopes don't find alien craft is two fold, the vast majority of craft are cloaked, they are invisible because of the fact they are operating clandestinely, and these telescopes are most often scanning narrow sectors of the sky. You'd have to be scanning the entire heavens constantly. But.....

Loeb is going to run into trouble because the aliens will quickly know about him, and make themselves invisible to his operation. Remember, they are operating clandestinely. For now, they do not want us to know about them. My guess is that they are waiting for us to advance to a certain level of evolutionary intelligence, be more peaceful before they do. However, methnks if we start a nuclear war, they will intervene there.

I"ve heard some argue that, well, if they want to take over our planet, they could, so why don't they. The counter to that is that this is their planet and we are their project.

Tons has been written, you haven't taken the first step to study it, have you? Read the books by Hynek and

The aliens erase memories. But, what is being discovered it's not foolproof, that much of the memories can be recovered in hypnosis.

the argument against false memory, what is called 'confabulation', addressed. This is why I urge you to read Dr. Jacob's book, 'Walking Among us' and 'The threat' where he explains it much better than I can.

I've weighed arguments for and against, and what usually is true as that those who argue against haven't traveled the journey I"ve traveled. I"ve been researching this for years.

See, there is no one thing that is going to do it for you. You have to go on a journey of discovery and research, and that takes time,and tremendous curiosity. There is a lot of kookery, of course, but there is wheat in the chaf, but you must be willing to look, consider. J. Allen Hynek, astronomer who gave us 'project blue book' who, when he started, commissioned by the Air Force, not to research UFOs, but to debunk them.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

As UFO reports continued to be made, some of the testimonies, especially by military pilots and police officers, were deeply puzzling to Hynek. He once said, "As a scientist I must be mindful of the lessons of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."[6]

And that, Honest Joe, is the problem. Wiki goes on....

In a 1985 interview, when asked what caused his change of opinion [from skeptic to considering it possible], Hynek responded, "Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have an explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there was something to all this."

The UFO field is vast. No one little thing is going to convince you, this is the big point, and recall when I say, for every argument against there is a compelling counter argument. but to understand the counter argument, you must journey to get there.

 

Your initial statement was that "The kind of evidence you want, that is never going to happen." (my emphasis). If your aliens are going to come forward at some point (regardless of when), that "never" is clearly false. This is exactly the kind of inconsistency and fuzziness (sometimes wilful) that causes so much difficulty in this kind of field. If you can't make clear and consistent claims, how can you expect anyone to seriously consider them?

Then you re in no position to be presenting your own conclusions. You can present your beliefs but that is obviously an entirely different prospect that doesn't support your apparent level of confidence in their truth.

There is loads of evidence presented, we just don't know what that evidence actually relates to.

Plenty of professionals have looked in to this question without your implicit bias. The overall conclusion is, not surprisingly, "we don't know". There are far too many unknowns for us to reach any definitive answer on the probabilities of life elsewhere in the universe or the nature of the life where it exists. Some kind of life seems fairly likely, technologically advanced civilisations possible and space-faring ones plausible. That is still a long, long way away from them being able and willing to visit Earth today and even further from the very specific narrative you are proposing here.

Those aren't really answers, they just raise a whole set of additional questions. Again, you building up the detail and complexity of your proposal doesn't help make it more likely, if anything, it does the exact opposite. For example, you've now introduced the concept of rendering objects truly invisible, which raises a whole range of questions about how that could even be physically possible.

Except for all the cases where they don't. Does that mean none of those are really alien encounters?

Formally they would be recognised as unproven and even after they were proven, many of the stories and claims about them can be shown to be false or exaggerated. Suggesting there could be large creatures in the deep oceans is reasonable. Claiming the Cthulhu mythos is entirely true on that basis is not reasonable (even if it could be). The idea that some form of extra-terrestrial aliens could be visiting Earth is equivalent to the first statement. Your complex and detailed claims about specific aliens is equivalent to the latter.

No, the point is your very specific claims about the nature of the aliens you believe are visiting us, and the internal inconsistencies within those claims are you are presenting them (and as they are presented by others you reference). My issue isn't with the idea of visiting aliens, it is with the specific claims made with no definitive evidence or consideration of other possibilities (even possibilities still involving aliens).

What are you basing these assertions on? You're now not talking about the nature of aliens which visit Earth but details about the development of multiple alien civilisations across the universe. I see absolutely zero justification for even proposing this as a general principle.

I agree that SETI is a flawed process due to the assumption that we would be able to detect radio waves from alien civilisations but the reasoning for that is much wider and speculative that your statement would imply.

The Galileo Project does seem somewhat better, though it has the flaw of an bias towards any unidentified objects being of extra-terrestrial aliens. Of course, you have asserted that the aliens you propose would evade any such detection, conveniently rendering it ineffective in supporting or countering any of your claims.

Again, I've no interest in buying books written to fit pre-determined conclusions. This requires independent minds reviewing primary evidence.

Is it not even possible for multiple abductees to be impressed with similar false memories, especially if the hypnotists have an interest in a particular outcome, and is it not possible that the outcomes of hypnosis session could be interpreted with bias, conflating vaguely similar aspects and overlooking conflicting ones to reach a specific conclusion? Again, I am not asserting any particular answer, I am only challenging your apparently certainty of the unquestionable validity of this evidence as a basis for the specific and highly details conclusions you have reached.

You said you're not a scientist so you can't have been researching. You have probably just been reading other peoples conclusions and taking them on face value (which is why you keep directing me to books that just promote the idea of aliens rather than evidence that could support or counter those claims).

It is, but UFO doesn't equal alien spaceship. We already know that UFOs have a wide range of possible explanations because a whole load of them have been definitively explained. A small proportion haven't (yet), though all of those possibilities remain open for them by default. Some could be alien spacecraft but we simply can't know.

 

Cool, you pinned me down on the 'never' so my sloppiness. My reply is the more better articulated and corrected version.

If I had posted this in the Science forum, your point would be valid, but look at where I posted it, which I did precisely to disabuse any such demands such as 'you have no business presenting my own conclusions'. In a CT subforum, I should think it is allowed.
.
I am passionate about my opinions, beliefs, but I am also honest about the caliber of evidence that leads me to my conclusions.

Okay.....

Some who require incontrovertible proof are unwilling to hold an opinion, to say 'I'm leaning this way or that way". ON the other hand, others are.

This, from wikipedia on the Astronomer hired by the Air Force to study UFOs ( or, rather, to debunk them, to the annoyance of Hynek, who posited that science should go about it with any predetermined conclusions):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek
Change of opinion

In 1953, Hynek was an associate member of the Robertson Panel, which concluded that there was nothing anomalous about UFOs, and that a public relations campaign should be undertaken to debunk the subject and reduce public interest. Hynek would later lament that the Robertson Panel had helped make UFOs a disreputable field of study.

As UFO reports continued to be made, some of the testimonies, especially by military pilots and police officers, were deeply puzzling to Hynek. He once said, "As a scientist I must be mindful of the lessons of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."[6]

In a 1985 interview, when asked what caused his change of opinion, Hynek responded, "Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have an explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there was something to all this."

Hynek remained with Project Sign after it became Project Grudge (though he was far less involved in Grudge than he had been in Sign). Project Grudge was replaced with Project Blue Book in early 1952, and Hynek remained as scientific consultant. Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, Blue Book's first director, held Hynek in high regard: "Dr. Hynek was one of the most impressive scientists I met while working on the UFO project, and I met a good many. He didn't do two things that some of them did: give you the answer before he knew the question; or immediately begin to expound on his accomplishments in the field of science."[7]

Though Hynek thought Ruppelt was a capable director who steered Project Blue Book in the right direction, Ruppelt headed Blue Book for only a few years. Hynek has also stated his opinion that after Ruppelt's departure, Project Blue Book was little more than a public relations exercise, further noting that little or no research was undertaken using the scientific method.

Interestingly Enough, we are fortunate to have a free audiobook on Ruppelt's book, (Caveat: this is volume 1 of numerous recordings, so it's many hours long). It's a good listen if you are driving.

Of course there are literally hundreds of more questions, and the point being, there are explanations for just about every concern and objection you can think of. See, the subject is vast and most fellows on the sidelines raising objections haven't scratched the surface on what's published on this subject, many and/or most assume that most of it is kookery, and I do acknowledge a lot of it is. But the sources I quote are not by woo woo magical thinking types. there is wheat among the chaf and I can't possibly take you on the journey which, in my view, would be required for you to reach a meeting of mind with me on the subject. I'm just saying, if you did, it is possible that you might. Remember, the best place we can come to is 'leaning one way or the other'. There is no conclusive proof to the satisfaction of Science. But, I'm a layman and I have the luxury of opinion based on what I've read and seen, thus far.

Most of the time where cameras, electronic devices, etc, do not fail is at greater distances. It's up close when it happens. I base this on testimony. Whether or not this is done intentionally by aliens, I do not know.

It's a similar situation with Sasquatch. I believe they exist based on the overwhelming number of testimonies from all over the world. If you see a large concentric outward flowing waves, ripples in a lake, we can safely presume something caused them. If thousands of people witnessed the cause, we can have a better idea of the cause. For science, they would need to see the thing up close or have a creature in a case to examine. But, for us lay folks, what has been presented thus for is sufficient for us to hold an opinion. I'm leaning the way that believes in Sasquatch. Is that absolute proof? no. But, I'm not a scientist and thus I can afford to hold an opinion, which, at this juncture, is as good as it gets.

It goes back to the fact that it would be impossible to address your concerns here, it requires research (okay 'study') and your taking a journey to get there.
My burning curiosity led me to study the subject for the last several years. I find the arguments that are against have been adequately dealt with in my study. For a Scientist, the would need a creature in a cage or a dead alien to sample, or a spacecraft in hanger to examine. As a layperson, since that kind of evidence is not available ( though we in the UFO community believe the gov has it and is not disclosing it for national security reasons ) I can have an opinion, but it's not based on magical thinking, in my view.

Read books by Prof. J. Allen Hynek, Stanton Friedman, Prof John Mack, Budd Hopkins, Dr. David Jacobs. Col. Ruppelt, to name a few.

Deduction, but of course, it's speculation. I could be way off. It does seem logical to me, though, which is why I hold the opinion. We are not that advanced, and we do not have telepathy. However, abductees, in each and every case in over a thousand cases, tell us that aliens communicate via telepathy. If they communicate via telepathy, then RF communication seems moot. It seems logical to me that they evolved, and they are just more evolved projections of us. Perhaps early in their evolution they did use vocal chords and communicated distance - wise with RF means of some kind.
It seems logical to me than in some future time, we will evolve to develop telepathy in humans. but, I don't know.

I just gave a reason which made sense to me, but I'm no scientist.

I don't believe Avi is biased, just open minded. I haven't observed him making definitive claims of aliens about any foreign objects in space, just giving data which might suggest the possibility where it has yet to be falsified. I do believe, however, based on the testimonies of abductees, that the aliens will know about his project and make sure he never finds them, given that the aliens are operating clandestinely. That might change at some future date, but that's all I know. This is speculation based on what I now abductees tell us.

Ahah, you've made an assumption; 'fit pre-determined conclusions'. That is false. Jacob's book isn't what you think it is. Nor are Hynek's or Ruppelt's the latter two are probably more to your liking. Despite that, I think you shoud read Jacob's book anyway. It's a compelling read.

Abductees, under regressive hypnosis, from all walks of life, waitresses, scientists, lawyers, government people, ordinary people, have recovered memories of aliens abducting them, and they all tell a similar tale, over and over and over again, and, again, my point is, the devil is in the details.

I can't say this about Budd Hopkins, or John Mack, but in my view, Dr. David Jacobs does not have the desire to influence, or lead, his subjects, to any particular outcome. David Jacobs, to me, seems the wisest of them all, on the subject of regressive hypnotherapy, better than Mack, who is a tenured professor of psychiatry, though of course, I'm not qualified to even make that assessment, it's just my opinion based on listening to their TV appearences

I repeat: Abductees, under regressive hypnosis, from all walks of life, waitresses, scientists, lawyers, government people, ordinary people, have recovered memories of aliens abducting them, and they all tell a similar tale, over and over and over again, and, again, my point is, the devil is in the details. I strongly recommend for you to read Dr. David Jacob's book, "Walking Among Us'. I don't like woo or magical thinking, and in my view, the book isn't that kind of book.

The answer to that question might be more apparent, if you just take the time and read Dr. David Jacob's book, "walking among us" in its entirety, without any preconceived idea about what you might imagine how it will be written, just read it. I ignore Jacob's conclusions, I'm not interested in opinions, or rather, I'll consider opinions by others, but ultimately, I form my own opinions, but note that I do not make the mistake of parading opinions as fact. I"m primarily interested in the data he has recovered, and his methodology.

Okay, 'researching' isn't the correct term. Studying is the better term.

NO, I ignore peoples conclusions. I go by their data and methodology. As I just stated above.

Goes without saying.

 

Where you post doesn't have any impact on the requirement to support your assertions. The fact you feel the need to post in a conspiracy theory section at all doesn't help your case, since such areas are specifically created because some people expect to be able to make their definitive assertions without following the standard principles of explaining and supporting them (I didn't even click where this was posted and don't treat posts differently based on where they're posted beyond what is required by the forum rules).

Again, my issue is more down to how you present the two. I'm not convinced you actually treat your beliefs and your conclusions differently since they're implicitly connected. And this leads to the issues I've been pointing out, where you keep making contradictory statements and present a level of complex detail and definitive certainty (due to the belief) that isn't even supported by your apparent confidence in the evidence.

Rubbish! I literally just referred to an example of scientists (and me) doing exactly that, holding the opinion that it is highly likely that some form of life developed on other planets in the universe. I'm also posting here specifically because I hold the opinion that the detail and certainty of your beliefs about these specific alien visitors is not supported by the evidence. The issue here isn't other people holding opinions, it is your unwillingness to give other opinions the same level or credence you expect others to give yours and your expectations for others to accept that your opinions could be entirely correct while being fundamentally incapable of accepting that anything you believe could be in any way incorrect.

The whole concept of UFOs has become fundamentally corrupted (there is a reason the USAF are using a different term). People determined not to accept the possibility of alien spacecraft are certainly an element of that but the people determined to assert they are caused by alien spacecraft are at least as responsible too. The simple fact is that the U in UFO means unidentified. UFOs, by literally definition, aren't evidence for alien spacecraft (or anything else). Anything that was evidence would no longer be unidentified and would therefore require a different term. Of course, there is no example of any UFO that has been definitively identified as an alien spacecraft so the entire concept isn't really relevant to any specific claims about the presence of aliens on Earth.

There are certainly possible explanations but the key point is that there are also possible explanations that don't support your specific conclusions or indeed conclusions involving aliens at all. I'm not presenting all the unanswered questions as proof that you're wrong, only as proof that your conclusions aren't as clearly or definitively supported as you'd like to believe.

I think this is the first time I've notice you use the phrase "I don't know" which I guess is progress. Do you accept that your previous statements about electronic devices (and people!) being "switched off" by aliens didn't come close to even hinting at any level of uncertainty?

Yet again, there is a world of difference between suggesting the general idea of something unexplained being the cause of particular phenomena or experiences and making extremely details assertions extrapolated from incomplete and unclear evidence. If you were saying some kind of aliens were visiting Earth I wouldn't have as much of an issue. It is your post where you went in to extreme detail that raised so many issues and questions for me.

It isn't if you are willing and able to acknowledge what my concerns actual are. The issue remains not the claims but the presented certainty in the detail which couldn't be supported on the basis of the kind of evidence you're referring too, regardless if that evidence in itself was 100% reliable.

From the Galileo Project website; "The goal of the Galileo Project is to bring the search for extraterrestrial technological signatures of Extraterrestrial Technological Civilizations (ETCs) from accidental or anecdotal observations and legends to the mainstream of transparent, validated and systematic scientific research.".

They're apparently not openly looking at evidence and trying to determine the cause, they have a specific conclusion and are only seeking evidence to support it. It's nothing like as bad as many of the conspiracy theory alien hunters but still scientifically imperfect by design.

You evaded both of my questions there. They are simple yes/no questions and are not about what is true, only what is possible, since my posts in general relate to your apparent certainty rather than the specific of your beliefs. So again;

Is it possible for multiple abductees to be impressed with similar false memories?
Is it possible that the outcomes of hypnosis session could be interpreted with bias, conflating vaguely similar aspects and overlooking conflicting ones to reach a specific conclusion?

You accept you're not researching but immediately talk about data and methodology. You can't consider data and methodology without researching it. Again, what you are doing is reading and accepting their stated conclusions based only on what investigation and research they claim to have done. You are then projecting their level of certainty as if it is your own.

Sadly it doesn't given so many people assume or assert the opposite.

 

You asserted that "you have no business presenting my own conclusions'", this was your reply to my:

Not really. Given their history, the point is they don't appear to be wanting to make themselves known, in a grand fashion, any time soon, though they've alluded to some future date.

Which was the bettar articulation of my point to which you replied. With that correction, my post is one of offering up a subject for discussion, not to prove anything to a 'scientific standard' for which there is no 'requirement' as you assert, on a CT forum, which is a discussion forum.

Your point, 'it doesn't help my case" is an argument, fine, so we'll continue the debate. But, you point of 'no business' is nonsense. I mean, if you are are that sloppy in your response on that particular point, perhaps you are just as sloppy on other points, we shall see.

You must understand, I cannot possibly prove 'aliens are visiting us' to any scientific standard. My only objective is to impress upon you that I've reached my opinions based on years of study, for which the 16k character limit will not allow me to take you on the same journey I've traveled, which is why I'm recommending that if you are curious, you should be willing to read books, listen to videos, which, apparently now, based on your assumptions of caliber, prevent you from looking at. It goes back to the idea that if you are waiting for the kind of evidence most scientists would love to have, such as an a dead (or alive) alien in a public science lab ror examination, or a space craft, that kind of evidence, especially even if the government had it, they are not going to allow it, nor will aliens, based on what I know about them derived from the verisimilar testimonies of hundreds of abductees, that day will not be on the horizon for a long time. They have hinted on the point that if earth were to experience a catastrophic event, they would intervent, but until then, it looks like no time soon. Thus, until then, the best that can be achieved is to survey the field, travel a veritable journey, and perhaps you might reach a meeting of mind with me on this point, or perhaps you won't, but that, currently, is as good as it will ever get, until the verisimilar testimonies of abductees change in unison as stated above, noting, again, and their points in general in unison regarding alien intent and methods. That is why I find their testimonies compelling.

Did you not read the part of my statement: "but others are"?

I don't expect anything, this point is addressed above.

The term UFO, though technically you are correct, means that which is identified, but the term has evolved to mean 'alien space craft'. I only say that because it is quite often used in that context, and, if you know anyone who work for Websters, when a word is used a certain way, in abundance, over say, decades, as is the case above, then they will add new nuanced meanings in the word's definition. I should think the term UFO, is ready for an additional line in the entry in the dictionary, by now.

so, pinning us pro UFO people down on that point is rather silly.

Well, you are not factoring in the years of study I've endeavored that leads me to my conclusion. No 16k character limit, plus limitations of time, are going to allow for it.

My only point is that to every argument against, there is a plausible counter argument. Sure, there could be debate on 'plausible' and so in we continue with the debate.

What is the point of that point? That such arguments against are not the final word on the subject (nor am I presenting anything as the final word, either).

I only lean a certain way on the subject of alien visitation. What I don't do is accept blindly any position. If I do offer speculation, I will offer it as such, and explain my path of reasoning for it.

Some of my ideas are pure speculation, other details are based on the testimonies of abductees in unison on certain points. You claim I've been inconsistent, and I don't think I am, so could you elaborate on my alleged inconsistencies?

I can understand that, science wants 100% reliability. Based on what I know garnered from testimonies in unison from hundreds of abductees, the alliens are not going to allow earthlings to have it. I do, believe, however, the government has it, and they are not disclosing anything. Again, mhy point is that, if you are curious, the best that can be obtained is to study the field, and come to some kind of determination at the level of 'leaning one way or the other'. That, for now, is probably, based one what I know as stated above, going to be as good as it will ever get.

From that statement you cannot presume they are pre-concluding anything, it merely states their mission.

Seek evidence, not to support a conclusion, but a mission, an objective, a goal, and the distinction is important and I'm wondering why you can't see it?

Of course it is possible, and it has occured, but a simple yes or no answer excludes the greater context, there are hypnotherapists and then there are hypnotherapists, and thus truth is often lies in the greater context.
The point being your point is addressed in one particular book I favor, 'Walking Among Us' by Dr. David Jacobs. But, you've stated you won't read it, for assumptions you have made about it. You don't like the title. It's a conclusion, and one that I share, but based on Jacob's work. Other conclusions he has made I'm not as quick to share. Your assumption, I would assume, is you think the caliber of his work isn't reliable. Why don't you read it, and then decide? Are you that certain?

Ditto, above. There are hypnotherapists, and then there are hypnotherapists. The only one I really trust, to date, is Dr. David Jacobs and possibly Prof. John Mack.

I know 'conclusions' when I encounter them. Take Dr. Jacobs work, it his methodology and work that I trust, NOT his conclusions.

For example, he comes to the conclusion that the alien agenda is sinister, and he only bases on two salient notions garnered from abductees testimony:

1. That they operate clandestinely
2. That abductees, in unison, all tell a story that they are brought into a room (on an alien space craft) to watch a screen/video of people gathered in a picnic, whereupon the aliens ask the abductee, 'can you tell who are us [the alien hybrids who look like humans] and who are you (earthlings) in this gathering'? The abductee says 'no, they all look human', and then the aliens declare "You see? Soon we will all be together, soon everyone will be happy and everyone will know his place." This similar tale is told over and over an above again, in the last decade ( from a span of a few decades). See, if someone tells a tale that is not given by many others, he discards it, it is only when it comes up in many sessions from many people does he consider it 'compelling'. ( no one is suggesting 'absolute proof' that is not the point).

My view, where I do find the fact that hundreds of abductees are telling that same story, one that is NOT part of any pop culture item, it appears rather chilling, Orwellian, even, but it could be interpreted another way, and because of that, I don't share his ominous viewpoint on the 'alien agenda'.

Ok.

 

Again, that is specifically about the distinction between conclusions and beliefs. By declaring that you are not approaching the question scientifically, you're essentially seeking to avoided needing to address any scientific or logical flaws in your statements. On that basis, it isn't legitimate for you to label those statements "conclusions". If they are conclusions, they're scientific (if only as amateur/lay science) and can be challenged on that basis. You can suggest other people who are making scientific conclusions on the topic but that still doesn't make your statements scientific, even if you're directly repeating theirs.

My sole point here is that you can't support the level of detail or certainty you're expressing in your statements on the basis of the limited scale and scope of evidence you're willing to present. I don't think I could have been any clearer on that, it just isn't what you want to hear.

And yet at the same time you accept that you're not a scientist and have not assessed any evidence. Your "study" appears to consist of reading narrative books since that is the only "evidence" you seem willing or able to present. The existence of those books are not sufficient to convince me of any conclusions, certainly not anything close to details or conviction you appear to hold. That remains my answer to the OP question you posed.

If you can't direct me to any actual primary evidence (because you've not looked in to it yourself), how can you expect me to move any further on this? You asked me whether I believe and I explained why I don't. You explained why you do believe the very details and specific things that you do and I pointed out the various rational reasons why I don't consider your reasoning sufficient to support all of those beliefs. Note that isn't denying their possibility, only saying that they are not supported by what you've posted or referenced here.

Yes, and I ignored it as an irrelevant distraction. The core point was that you were attempting to discredit the opinions of the scientists I referred to because they don't support your "conclusions" (though don't contradict them either).

Yes, but wrongly and commonly inconsistently, often with dishonest intent. But just because other people do it is no excuse. If you're referring to alien spacecraft, you should use that term. I can't think of any honest or valid reason for choosing to feed confusion with wilfully confusing terminology.

If you'd done all that study, you should be able to explain the justification for the unsupported assertions you're making. That wouldn't require great detail or explanation if you had that actual evidence. If you don't have evidence because those things are just your beliefs, you should be clearer about that and stop making closed statements about what things "are" as if they're unquestioned facts (the classic example being when you started talking about how all alien civilisations develop psychic abilities over time).

You're not presenting counter arguments though, you're simply making empty declarations about what "is". We can't discuss those arguments unless you're actually willing to present them here. If you won't (or feel you can't) then the only point of this thread is you declaring that you believe something.

The inconstancy is exactly in the fact that you repeatedly say some of your statements are speculation yet you've not identified any other them on that basis. Please review your post #5, which was the core trigger. Can you identify anything in your long list of assertions in there, about what the aliens are and do, which honestly comes across with any hint of speculation or uncertainty?

No, you don't understand science at all. I didn't say science requires 100% reliability, I said that even if your evidence was 100% reliable, it still wouldn't support the definitive conclusions you reach on the basis of them. If you are accepting the existence of extra-terrestrial aliens, are other explanations which could just as reasonably account for what you describe.

Their stated mission is to prove the existence of extra-terrestrials. That suggests that if they found evidence countering that conclusion, they would (at best) ignore it.

So you trust the ones who happen to agree with your beliefs and not any who don't?

Do you trust Dr. Benjamin Simon, who you referenced in relation to Barney and Betty Hill? I read that following the sessions he had with them, he concluded that there was an entirely psychological explanation not involving aliens?

 

Au contraire. I don't assert whether I'm approaching the question scientifically or not. I may, or may not be, I don't know, I'm not a scientist. I know what is logical within my own universe, which of course, others knowledgeable about science may wish to correct. Just because I'm not a scientist, doesn't necessarily mean any of my approaches are unscientific. They may be, may not be. Perhaps they are inadvertantly at times, and other times not, I dn't know. I'll defer to science on such points. There are also cultural and psychological aspects, and degrees, nuance, shades of grey, in various approaches, arguments, etc.

If you can indicate any logical flaws in my conclusions, indicate then, and I will address them to the best of my ability, but your insinuation I'm trying to avoid anything is nonsense.

I'm not here on some kind of science mission, I'm here within the context this forum to discuss the subject. Grey areas are allowed.

I just told you "preface everything I write with 'in my opinion' ". I can draw conclusions based with that context. I'm not a scientist, and the word 'conclusion', well, as any lawyer will tell you, science doesn't have a monopoly on the term.

See above.

You are quick to make determinations I have not made. I did not say I haven't assessed any evidence.

Again, I'm offering up a subject for discussion, not here to fulfill your scientific requirements.

Again, you are making assumptions about what is in those books, lectures, documents, studies, videos, etc. If you were curious, you might want to take that journey, but it will take a burning curiosity. Like I said, the kind of evidence you are seeking will probably not avail itself for a long time, given what I've learned about the subject.

Like I said, it is likely that no one thing is going to do it for you. There is no black and white evidence, there are TONS of grey evidence, though.

No one thing did it for me either, it was after a long journey.

All you are telling me is your assumption that if you took that journey, you would never change your mind.

That may be true.

They don't support my conclusions because they haven't traveled the journey I have. However, J. Allen Hynek, who had taken that journey, who, originally believed the UFO phenomena was nonsense, changed his mind insofar as he reached a place where he believed there might be something to it, and that is is a subject worthy of scientific inquiry. However, the problem is that the subject has been stigmatized and no one wants to pursue it for fear of ridicule, harming their careers, etc.

See? this is the very scientific community you expect me to applaud and accept their 'conclusions' who are the very ones stigmatizing the subject, or allowing it be be stigmatized, or being intimidated by it, and not standing up to the stigmatizers and kneejerk nay sayers and asserting that this is a valid field of study.

Fair enough, but the term has evolved over several decades, it has a formal and informal definition.

Your making assumptions about 'should'. You haven't traveled the journey and a journey is required. You couldn't possibly know about humanity by observing the earth through a telescope, or even if you, as an alien, landed on earth and walked around a few blocks. You'd have to live there, walk among and work with people over a period of a few years to get a sense of it.

There is no black and white evidence, there is a journey which, if you will willing to travel, you could get a better sense of it than to assume what should or shouldn't be. In this field, 'getting a sense of it' is about as good as it will ever get.

There are plenty of examples on the internet of 'trace evidence'. That is about as concrete of evidence as can be had, these days. I've also not seen adequate explanations for the cattle mutilation phenomenon.

You'll have to read the works of Dr. David Jacobs, Budd Hopkins, and Prof John Mack to understand why I believe what I believe.
Also the books by Stanton Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, Ruppelt, the testimonies given by military personnel on Dr. Greer's 'Sirius Disclosure' DVD, for starters.

For starters.

Well, the thing is, I find my research, which is more vast than a few arguments made against by a few ad hoc polemicists, scientists or otherwise, far more compelling. Take for example the numerous times Niel Degrasse Tyson and declared that he finds the fact that with all the billions of cell phones about that there isn't compelling photos/videos proving aliens. Surely, if they were here, someone would have captured it on a cell phone. I find it odd a man of his caliber ignores a fundamental point about photography. I say this because I worked as a professional photographer for a couple of decades.

On numerous occasions Tyson suggests that because there are billions of cellphones out there we should have proof of aliens and spacecraft (if they have visited earth ) but the recent photo from a Jet's cockpit was taken by a cell phone and no one is asserting that is a true alien craft so cell phones are not going to prove anything. Cell phones are not designed for this type of Photography -- high-powered telephoto professional cameras would be and how many people have those? Very few, and those that haven't are shooting nature and pretty women, for the most part, are not haning out in the desert for years on end hoping to get lucky and shoot an alien space craft, the kind of luck which would be necessary, if one intends to shoot one. There was an interview with National Geographic photographer. He said that for every photo selected for publication, he shot 10,000 rolls of film. For example, he, once, was trying to get a worthy shot of some animals ( I forgot what kind ) and it took him six months jsut to get one shot that Nat Geo would accept.

Imagine the kind of patience would be required for a professional photographer with $10k worth of gear, to sit and wait for an up close shot of an alien space craft? It's like winning the lottery.

I talked with a park ranger in the Cleveland National Forest ( which is not in Cleveland, it's on SoCal ) and it spans 400 square miles. He said they knew of about a couple of dozen Pumas throughout the forest. They could be dangerous, but the odds are slim you'll ever see one.

My father drove from Lake Elsinore, through the forest, to Dana Point, where he worked, every day for 30 years, and never saw one. I drove from Lake Elsinore to Saddleback College ( in Mission Viejo, near Dana Point ) every day for 3 years, and on one occasion, one crossed my path on the highway for which I had to break.

I would imagine capturing an alien space craft up close, with great detail, would be a once in a life time thing nad who has the gear, and the patience, to do it? This is why there are no great photos of the things. That plust the fact that we have testimony from hundreds of abductees who tell us, that, after trying to video their abductions by aliens, they switched off their devices. Simply pout, they do not want humans to have evidence, and the reason is that they are operating clandestinely.

Well, let's take a look at what they say on their website:

I see nothing in their stated goal where they are attempting to 'prove' anything with any predetermined or biased view, as you are suggesting. What they are saying, essentially, is to come up with better explanations for unexplained things in space. So, I do not agree with your assertion

I am more inclined trust those who have taken time to study the subject and survey the field, methodically, logically, etc., over a good period of time, a field which is far vaster than someone sitting behind a computer or appearing on a TV show or being interviewed, and making monday morning quarterback assumptions about the subject. But, even then I must qualify, because there are a number of individuals who agree with me, essentially, who also state a lot of kooky things on top of it, there are charlatans, fakers, conmen in the field, far more than in the general field of science. It is that reason why the subject has been stigmatized, but scientists who have allowed themselves to be influenced by the chaff to the result of ignoring the wheat, do not impress me as scientists. This is why I like Avi Loeb, who understands this. There are scientists, and there are scientists. Scientists get it wrong, all the time. What is wrong is to not even look.

IN short, your question presumes a simplistic answer, where none exists.

No, I trust Dr. John Mack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Mack

I would like to comment that the recent Navy sightings of 'tic tocs', in my view, are American military black projects, though there are counter arguments to that view, and there are counter arguments to the counter arguments.

 

You specifically stated "I'm not a scientist, I don't do 'hypothesis'.". The very fact of you swinging back and forth on that statement is just an example of the inconstancy of your process. You talk about evidence and conclusions (occasionally with some justification), but the moment there are any legitimate questions or challenges to that, you fall back on "opinion" and "belief". The problem is that you're still presenting your "conclusions" (in all their breadth and detail) as if you hadn't made that shift and are working from indisputable evidence. Nobody should need to assume an invisible "In my opinion..." caveat to your comments, you could just word them in such a way as to clearly infer the correct level of confidence and clarity. Alternatively, you could just admit that you are actually much more certain of your beliefs despite being aware that you can't possibly support that level of certainty. This is sadly becoming more and more like a discussion about religion.

How about the idea that all abductees describe exactly the same experiences yet you need to say that there are actually multiple species of alien, presumably because some abductees actually describe different beings?

Or the assertion I mentioned already, where you started to talk about how alien civilisations will all naturally develop psychic abilities, but never even tried to back that up (even as a belief or opinion)?

But there are no grey areas in your "conclusions". You describe them is such detail and certainty that you don't leave any room for it. Again, there is a clear inconsistency between how you describe what you're doing here and what you actually do.

No, I'm saying you haven't assessed any primary evidence, on the basis that you've been unable to directly reference any. All you do is direct me towards the same handful of books.

I've seen and read more than I may have implied in the thread (intentionally). I've also seen plenty of assessments by lots of independent minds who have considered such works in the context of the actual primary evidence they're purportedly based on. The bottom line remains that there is nothing definitively convincing of the general idea of alien visitors and certainly not for any of the various specific beliefs (of which yours is just one). Nothing has moved me from the "We don't know" position and, significantly, nothing has been presented that would suggest it could provide any meaningful definitive evidence any way. I'm not sure of the benefit of speculating, especially in the proposed context of such powerful and controlling beings who apparently have a plan for if and/or when we will be permitted to know the truth.

You're missing (or evading) the point again. This was in the specific context of your claim that the number of stars likely to have habitable planets means there is likely to be multiple planets with species capable of interstellar travel (based on some inaccurate numbers and literally zero rational basis). It has nothing to do with your wider beliefs or opinions, I was addressing only this specific claim.

I pointed out that actual scientists (generally combinations of astrophysicist, biologists and statisticians) have looked in to this and their general conclusions are that while it is probable that there are planets where some form of life will have developed, the development of species advanced enough to be capable of interstellar travel is a much, much bigger step and nowhere close to as clear. They will also point out that there are so many unknown or unclear factors in such calculations, that we can't reach any kind of more meaningful conclusion on these questions.

So, the actual evidence doesn't actually support your opinion here, yet you continue to use that opinion as if it provides some kind of evidential basis for your wider beliefs. This is just one specific example of my issues with your overall approach to the question. You're building a house of cards but not all of the bottom cards are anything like as stable as you imagine them to be.

All the more reason to be clear about what you're actually saying and reason to be suspicious of anyone who casually uses the term in a way that makes their meaning less clear that it could be.

It isn't an assumption. You're saying you've done years of study yet all your references is a couple of books. Why can't you reference or even just describe some of the primary evidence you have studied over all those years?

Simple saying there is evidence is meaningless. You have said there are counter arguments for some of the questions I've raised. So why don't you actually present any of those counter arguments here (and note that just declaring what could be true isn't an argument, you'd also need to explain why that explanation would be more likely - or at least as likely - as any other)? I mean, I could just declare that there are counter arguments to your counter arguments and we'd be back to my starting point of "We don't know.".

That has literally nothing to do with anything you've described on this thread so far. Again, you're just blindly tossing in yet another ingredient in to the already complex recipe with zero reason or explanation. It's almost as if you want the whole thing to be too complex to have a meaningful conversation about.

In that case, instead of going off on a meaningless tangent randomly attacking one of them, why not talk about all of this "vast research" you've done?

We can agree to disagree on the Galileo Project. It's all somewhat moot until (unless) they actually come up with anything anyway.

How is that ever not what I asked you! Are you a politician in your spare time!?!

My question was whether you trust Dr. Benjamin Simon, someone you brought to my attention as one of the hypnotherapists whose conclusions you are using as the basis for your beliefs. Has your opinion of him suddenly changed now I've discovered that he doesn't share your beliefs?

I've no doubt you would, but I'd much prefer you stick to our current conversation and actually address my questions on your initial topic rather than go off on yet more evasive tangents.

 

I realize that is the picture you are trying to point, but no, a clarification doesn't equal 'swinging back and forth' nor 'inconsistent'

It's not a 'falling back' it's an 'always the case'. It's Belief with some rationale and some substance, which is always the case, just assume it. If I state something that is pure speculation, I will make it clear.

There is no problem other than one you appear wanting to be made.

Because indisputable evidence does not exist. Evidence which heightens probability does exist, and that is as good as it gets, currently.
The question, are you willing to consider the latter for purpose of getting a better sense of the scope of the field, or are you not going to decide one way or the other until indisputable evidence arrives. If it's the latter, it is likely you will be waiting a long time ( given what I have learned based on a plethora of the former type of evidence ). Nothing, to date, is absolutely conclusive. If that isn't made clear, just assume it.

. I'm not discussing this with everybody (which 'nobody' implies) I'm discussing it with you. Rule #1. Rather than preface every line with 'in my opinion' which is cumbersome, please assume. If you are going to nitpick on this point in the future, refer to Rule #1.

We are discussing this in the CT forum. If you are experiencing any sadness, leave the forum.

But the religion comparison is specious, because there is no evidence for God, and there is the kind of evidence for ETs, not absolute proof, not incontrovertible proof, but the plethora of it, of various types, can, indeed, in one's view, heighten the probability of it being true, and that's as good as it will ever get, as far as I can see, on the horizon, based on what I've studied.

The question is for you is this: Are you willing to settle for that state of affairs on the subject? If not, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone on this subject because of the simple fact that the kind of evidence you seek just does not exist.

What you seem to be doing is attempting to shake people's opinion on the subject merely because that kind of evidence doesn't exist.

However, you are operating on the assumption that there is absolutely zero evidence of any kind, and that, Honest Joe, is false.

the describe mostly four - five, or so, different types, but the descriptions of each are the same. THAT is the point.

Nope. It's just speculation. I never accept speculations as fact, other than sheer amusement. I do try to find some kind of rationale, logic, etc., for it.
But, of course, it could be wrong.

The grey areas are in the evidence. My conclusions are just opinions, which could be wrong.

There is no point in offering any kind of (what I call grey) evidence because you'll just claim it's not conclusive, which, by itself, is true. And that is about all I could do here (because that is as good as it will ever get) and so there is no point in it.

But that isn't the point, the point is that there are TONS of it. And, traveling that journey, a picture emerges but for not having sojourned it will remain invisible.

See above.

Okay, let me restate my rationale, the logic for alien visitation which goes like this:

There are trillions of galaxies, and gazillions of planets (please don't pin me down on the number, it's astronomical, and that's the point) . I should think the odds of there being at leads a few civilizations so advanced that ehy have conquered the problem of practical interstellar travel. If they have that level of advancement, then it is also they have the technology to discover other planets which are less advanced, such as ours, and are visiting them and studying them in the same way we do species in rainforests, Galapagos, etc.

What I'm saying, it seems to me, we can presume alien visitation just on logic, alone.

But, that begs the obvious question, 'why haven't see seen them on earth?'.

But we have, it's just that they are operating clandestinely, making themselves known only to those whom they select, whereby they intentionally disallow humans to maintain proof of their existence. I conclude this based on the work product of Dr. John Mack, Budd Hopkins, Dr. David Jacobs.

The aliens have made themselves known to governments, who are afraid to let the cat out of the bag because of national security reasons ( Russia could weaponize the technology, that sort of thing). If you want evidence for this, (grey evidence) we'll have to go down some deep rabbit holes, but, I'm willing.

The only reason I believe that interstellar travel ( I would assume it's non linear travel ) is possible is because of work product of Dr. John Mack, Budd Hopkins, Dr. David Jacobs., and various compelling occurrences, such as the Maelstrom incident, and a number of others.

See above

With you, there is no point. Why? Because incontrovertible evidence does not exist, which is what you will assert (so why bother?) which, again, misses my point is that the state of affairs is not certainty, but coming to a place where one leans one way or the other, the result of traveling that journey, ie., witnessing a vast landscape from which a picture emerges, but will be invisible unless the landscape is fully surveyed, journey not traveled.

You want incontrovertible evidence.

It doesn't exist.

So, if I piont to anything, you'll just say it's inconclusive.

So, why bother?

I hold my opinions based on the size of the landscape which points to it, whereupon on singular item, by itself, doesn't.

Take a swath of paper, which is of a color which is ever so slightly darker hue than white.

Looking at it, singularly, it will look white, you won't know that it's not white.

But, stich a thousand of them together, and you will see that that small piece was never white all along.

We could go down that rabbit hole, if you want

Read Dr. Jacob's "Walking Among Us'. I found it compelling.

okay

I don't trust Simon, no (if he is saying it's 'dreams'). Mack is open to the idea that the recollections might be of real events. Mack is a Harvard fellow, a famous psychiatrist.

Pick a tangent, and we'll go down the rabbit hole.