What [if anything] does the existence of unsolved cases really prove?

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Studies were done by a lot on science basic problem is lack of evidence. I personally keep looking for anything that proves aliens somehow are visiting the evidence is always circumstantial.when I ask people questions it's always the government is covering it up. Well sorry in science that answer doesn't work. Aliens could be visiting but it requires proof not conjectures. And lack of an explination doesn't automatically default to aliens. This is no diffrent then people blaming god for things they couldn't explain. When you have people coming to the science community with nothing but a story your never going to be taken seriously there has to be something testable.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Point taken, and thanks for adding yet one more interesting case to the mix. It does seem at times like there's an endless supply of them.

Since you mentioned it, I'd like to clarify my position re: the ETH: I have no opinion on which explanation -- the ETH, EDH, time travel, etc. -- is ultimately the "truth". Vallee has made me think in ways no one else has, and I don't take his opinions lightly. I do think, though, that the ETH is the one that must be endorsed as the working hypothesis, since it requires less revision of current knowledge, but none of those results would surprise or disappoint me. As far as I'm concerned, they all deal with "aliens" to 21st Century Earth-As-We-Know-It, and all are equally interesting/terrifying....

Oh, and I have a typo in Karl12's handle in another post. It's too late to edit it, but... sorry Karl!

originally posted by: dragonridr
... science basic problem is lack of evidence. I personally keep looking for anything that proves aliens somehow are visiting the evidence is always circumstantial.... it requires proof not conjectures.

Circular. Most people agree that science hasn't yet given the topic a fair and unbiased shake. Even the scientists who've done the closest thing to science on it. So,who is it exactly that should be presenting "proof" to the scientists before the scientists will agree to go look for "proof"?

This is no diffrent then people blaming god for things they couldn't explain.

It's actually much, much different. As I said before re: elves, insert 'UFO' in for 'God' in the text below, and then you'll have an actual DIA UFO memo. There are no such memos re: 'God', and that obviously wouldn't even make sense... so that's the point, and the difference should be obvious.

"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the GOD phenomenon:
a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).
c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the GOD."

There is substantially more tangible evidence available in support of UFOs than there is for God.

originally posted by: dragonridrWhen you have people coming to the science community with nothing but a story your never going to be taken seriously there has to be something testable.

Does the situation described in that UFO memo above sound like just a "story" to you? Are you sure there are no biases present in your opinion? Because what's described above is exactly the kind of thing many scientists would love to spend some time with... IF you ask them privately. Publicly, of course, they're obliged to snicker and roll their eyes, because the taboo is real, and very, very strong.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: dragonridr
... science basic problem is lack of evidence. I personally keep looking for anything that proves aliens somehow are visiting the evidence is always circumstantial.... it requires proof not conjectures.

Circular. Most people agree that science hasn't yet given the topic a fair and unbiased shake. Even the scientist who've done the closest thing to science on it. So,who is it exactly that should be presenting "proof" to the scientists before the scientists will agree to go look for "proof"?

This is no diffrent then people blaming god for things they couldn't explain.

It's actually much, much different. As I said before re: elves, insert 'UFO' in for 'God' in the text below, and then you'll have an actual DIA UFO memo. There are no such memos re: 'God', and that obviously wouldn't even make sense... so that's the point, and the difference should be obvious.

"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the GOD phenomenon:
a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).
c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the GOD."

There is substantially more tangible evidence available in support of UFOs than there is for God.

originally posted by: dragonridrWhen you have people coming to the science community with nothing but a story your never going to be taken seriously there has to be something testable.

Does the situation described in that UFO memo above sound like just a "story" to you? Are you sure there are no biases present in your opinion? Because what's described above is exactly the kind of thing many scientists would love to spend some time with... IF you ask them privately. Publicly, of course, they're obliged to snicker and roll their eyes, because the taboo is real, and very, very strong.

So let me get this straight you think people seeing a bright ball in the sky is proof. We're they able to identify it? Did it have a sign that said aliens inside?? You do realize aliens I'd nit the only possible explination it is simply one of them. That's the problem. If I have a theory that is untestable like this case I can't prove anything. What if I told you it was an invisible dragon and this invisible dragon was having a problem wit the earth's magnetic field causing him to glow. YOU Would Say Well that's crazy no one has ever seen an invisible dragon. To which I say of course not they can't be seen. Well no one has ever heard one to which I say of course not they use telepathy. Then I day we'll I have one in my back yard. You say prove it so I take you to my backyard and say there it is. And you say I can't see anything. I say I told you he's invisible. Then YOU Fumble out into my yard and say we'll I can't feel anything. To which I say we'll he's shifted in another dimension so we can't touch him.

Now with the above example I have literally taken away any means of you proving my dragon doesn't exist. This is the UFO community in a nut shell. they see lights go it must be an alien. Then when any one tries to verify excuses start coming out like governmwnt is hiding the facts. Or they don't want us to find them and van manipulate our texh. Or they have mind control capabilities and erase our memories of the encounter. You might as well go to scientist's and claim its the Easter bunny of all you have is there was a light in the sky. When I look at an encounter i look for proof of what it is not what it could be.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Vallee has made me think in ways no one else has, and I don't take his opinions lightly.

I have been paying more attention to Vallee lately. Here is one of his more recent videos that I thought was really interesting and am more inline with. I was made aware of it by Karl12. Proceedings of the CAIPAN Paris workshop on UAP/UFOs



I was really surprised at some of the comments attacking him though.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

"When they do [take UFOs seriously]," you say? And WHEN was that? Hardly ever. Especially in the U.S. And actually, the few times science has taken the topic even a little bit seriously, it's been found that there's probably something to the phenomenon, something likely much more interesting than hoaxes and simple misidentifications. (Special Report 14, the Condon Report case analyses, etc.)

This is why I asked what you consider "main stream science". Or specifically who are you referring to as "scientists". Not me obviously or anyone else posting here. What I am saying is that people are willing to look at this scientifically that are here. That also means "objectively". That also means its not always going to be to your liking or support your beliefs.

So you think the disdain for UFOs that people like Shostack, Tyson, Shermer, etc. exhibit is a result of the attitudes of the present day pro-UFO crowd? I agree that the UFO 'community' can be its own worst enemy, but to say that science ignores the topic because of them is... well.. probably not consistent with reality.

What do you think would happen if those folks showed up here? How long would they last? And who really cares what they think?

And people have every right to be upset about mainstream science's failures here. We've all been let down by them. Any scientist whose opinion I'd care about would be familiar with the history of the topic, recognize science's failures there, and understand that the anger and frustration is 100% justified.

Its playing the blame game. Being a scientist is a job like any other job. I am sure you would find plenty of qualified scientists willing to take on UFOs but you would just have to pay them. The real world situation is to blame its not anyones fault. Science is an investment like anything else.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Yeah coming in with excuses that they are to smart to be caught on film with zero proof isn't going to get a lot of people to believe you. When you make a claim like aliens abducted me your going to have to show something. You basically end up describing a being that can walk through walls not be seen on cameras. Apparently have the ability to park a spaceship on someone's roof without neighbors noticing. And these beings apparently traveled billions of miles to kidnap people.

Now this has been going on for centuries in roam it would be a succubus.

Well, I guess you're just too smart for us, and too smart for the aliens too.
I was trying to be helpful because it seems you come to this topic rather uninformed as to the historical record of alien encounters.
And I'm pretty sure you meant Rome.

originally posted by: dragonridr
I personally keep looking for anything that proves aliens somehow are visiting the evidence is always circumstantial.when I ask people questions it's always the government is covering it up. Well sorry in science that answer doesn't work.

It's true that UFO investigation will always hit the stone wall of the government. They have no reason to tell you if that thing you saw in the sky is one of their Top Secret test aircraft or a falling spy satellite.

But with that excuse there's also the mistaken assumption that all governments on Earth are in on the cover up, and that the government/military is so ruthless and efficient that they're able to successfully cover up or manipulate every single sighting and encounter that has ever happened. Having been in the military for a short time, I find that difficult to believe.

a reply to: dragonridr

Here's a good paper to get started on. It's interesting to note that people that have not been exposed to the alien methos are never abducted by alienS. Strange apparently you have to know about aliens to be abducted by them. Wonder how they could possible know that.

I don't think this is the least bit true, people from all around the globe report encountering the same types of alien beings, and describe the same procedures, and some of these reports go back to the 1920s.
Of course, that's simply limiting the discussion to the modern era, there are cave paintings that bear a great similarity to these alien beings.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: dragonridr

Here's a good paper to get started on. It's interesting to note that people that have not been exposed to the alien methos are never abducted by alienS. Strange apparently you have to know about aliens to be abducted by them. Wonder how they could possible know that.

I don't think this is the least bit true, people from all around the globe report encountering the same types of alien beings, and describe the same procedures, and some of these reports go back to the 1920s.
Of course, that's simply limiting the discussion to the modern era, there are cave paintings that bear a great similarity to these alien beings.

Unidentified objects probably goes back 100s of thousands of years. But ET didn't show up until movies like Spielberg that told us what they are supposed to look like. Just like earlier UFOs were cigar shaped. Not surprising since dirigibles were the latest scientific enventions. What ever is in pop culture and Sci first is magically what people see sure it's just a coincidence of course.

Just look at sightings did you know they increase after major movie releases?

originally posted by: dragonridr
So let me get this straight you think people seeing a bright ball in the sky is proof. We're they able to identify it? Did it have a sign that said aliens inside?? You do realize aliens I'd nit the only possible explination it is simply one of them. That's the problem.

Is a "bright ball in the sky" the best UFO example? And you know that no one's yet talking about identifying any intelligence that might be involved, correct? First things first, and #1 is just acknowledging that they're real, that they're more than just misidentifications, and that they remain suspiciously unidentified. THEN scientists can "come out" and truly get to work. There are many who want to study the problem, but are now too afraid to speak up.

Lots of people here think there's nothing science can bring to bear on the issue, which I think is a pretty odd opinion. An opinion which has already been "falsified", in a loose sort of way, hasn't it? It's as if people don't WANT to know? Do some maybe fear that the result will be unsettling?

If I have a theory that is untestable like this case I can't prove anything.

I suspect you're just repeating things you've heard others say about THE WAY science works. Understandable, since so much of that goes on here -- "SCIENCE means we can test it in a lab"; "SCIENCE means a result is falsifiable"; "SCIENCE means"... blah, blah, blah.... Go actually read about it up though. "Science" is just the set of tools & techniques that humanity has agreed can be used, systematically, in order to figure out how the world works. If you think everything we accept as true is the result of a "falsifiable" experiment, or that those things have all been "proved"... well, that's definitely at odds with what I've read. If you think scientists can't study something that's fleeting and unpredictable, that's also definitely at odds with what I've read.

What if I told you it was an invisible dragon and this invisible dragon was having a problem....

I think that's a really poor analogy, and that you recently had a Dawkins overdose or something. I even cut the rest of your hypothetical out so that people won't associate it with your name. You can do better, dragonridr! That whole line of reasoning you were attempting there misses the point anyway.

Finally, you tried to misrepresent my views. Twice. People usually notice that, and it only hurts your argument.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

No 8 trying to point out to you people seeing something that they can't identify doesn't mean it's an alien.could be the president of the United states doesn't change the fact people misinterpret what they see. This is the basis for magicians fool people onto thinking they saw something.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

THEN scientists can "come out" and truly get to work.

I am really not sure who you have in mind. You mentioned Vallee. ... maybe you should discuss this with your friends?

Jacque Vallee is so highly over-rated and says so little of substance that I'm beginning to wonder if he's more interested in disinformation than information.

He cries there is no ontology in ufology as if that is a bad thing. Perhaps we should leave metaphysics out of the conversation altogether and deal more realistically with UFOs and alien contact, using phenomenology rather than ontology. I don't see how philosophical debates could possibly matter in what appears to be a colonization and genetic manipulation of the human race.

Vallee asks such ridiculous questions, like "How can we use insects to predict the appearances of UFOs?"

How pointless and absurd.

But this clip reveals a more major problem with Vallee's approach: He is looking for one answer to his questions, when in fact, we are talking about dozens, or perhaps scores, of completely different beings. There will be no "one answer" to most of the questions he poses in this clip.

And perhaps most importantly, how seriously can we take him as a UFO /UAP researcher when, after forty years of UFO research, he is still unwilling to state that alien beings are inside some of these ships?

Not very seriously at all, I'm afraid.

We know far too much about UFOs to pretend we can take aliens out of the equation, but Vallee wants us to avoid the ET hypothesis. Whatever credibility this guy enjoyed in the 1970s, he is rapidly squandering.

Him being overrated is an understatement.

I'm starting to think he's peddling disinfo with all of these other alternatives to the ETH. I just came across this article authored by him called 5 arguments against the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs. The arguments he's using to substantiate these alternatives are so full of crap I can't believe the serious researcher would buy any of it at all. Unfortunately, there are a good deal of people here on this site and elsewhere who gobble it up as if they were starving and haven't eaten for days.

Well said, True Messiah. I was beginning to think I was the only one to take a serious look at what Vallee is peddling and see it is virtually without substance. His song and dance is basically empty rhetoric, of no use in dealing with the reality of alien contact and alien abduction.

Whatever Vallee's game is, whatever his actual goal, by steering the discussion away from the fact that some UFOs are piloted by alien beings that abduct humans, what some call the ETH, he is not helping.

I'm sorry to say it, but Vallee is hindering our understanding of the terrible and ominous nature of this VERY one-sided relationship with aliens. A relationship we did not seek, but has been literally forced upon us.

Vallee won't talk about Greys. or insect, or mantis-type aliens, he prefers we avoid talk of aliens or ET altogether. He prefers we just call it "The Phenomenon", using the most vague euphemism possible to muddy the water. And you certainly won't hear Vallee ask how many Americans have been abducted, or what is their agenda and why does it require our reproductive cells?

Nope. Watch the clip of Vallee above, he asks questions like:

When does it stop being a flying saucer and becomes an orb?

How can we use insects to predict UFO occurrences?

Say what you want about David Jacobs, his work is far more substantial, useful and vital to understanding recent alien contact and the predicament we are in.

Not just Jacobs, of course, but he is vilified in here, and yet I feel his work is more valuable than Vallee's, by far.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

No 8 trying to point out to you people seeing something that they can't identify doesn't mean it's an alien.could be the president of the United states doesn't change the fact people misinterpret what they see. This is the basis for magicians fool people onto thinking they saw something.

Unfortunately cases like the phoenix lights proves that is all we are ever going to get. Regardless of what you believe about that case, the first sighting occurred during prime time hours over a heavily populated city and by all accounts, wasnt moving very fast. Why no pics? If there isnt video/pic evidence for this case, what possible hope do other cases that happen over sparsely populated areas at 2am have?

I dont think some people even realize that they are wasting time here, until its on the 6oclock news in high definition, they arent going to buy in. Otherwise its tiresome investigation and logic to determine if what evidence there is points to aliens.

Take the Westall case, if the cone saucer didnt take off like they claim, how did it? Did it really have wheels and was rollled out? Did the military show up and carry it out on flatbed like Kecksburg? None of it, they all saw the things maneuvering around the campus and eventually turn sideways to fly off.

Most cases give us exactly the evidence we should expect and all the crying in the world about the scientific method isnt going to change that. Were just going to have to study the better cases and come to own conclusions, if that isnt acceptable, the 6oclock news it is.

Cases recommended by various writers/investigators, compiled by Isaakoi

Some I prefer
Westall 66 (start in at 9:47, picture at 11:00). Drone like craft levitates up.
Ravenna police chase
Madagascar green ufo, double mass sighting
Belgium (start in at 2:20min) ufo wave
Minot AFB B-52 incident
Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
I was really surprised at some of the comments attacking him though.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
I am really not sure who you have in mind. You mentioned Vallee. ... maybe you should discuss this with your friends?

LOL, trying pretty hard to get him to bite here huh? You already posted the link but I guess that wasn't good enough so you had to go copy/paste the actual posts. As if varying opinions of one particular researcher can't be overcome among those on the same side in support of the ETH being the most favorable hypothesis. HAHAHA!

Oh and I still stand by that post of mind on Vallee. I considered what he was peddling in that article (dancing around the ETH) as crap then, and it still is now.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

LOL, trying pretty hard to get him to bite here huh?

oh absolutely. If it were me that said those things...or Jim Oberg, what would be the reaction?

As if varying opinions of one particular researcher can't be overcome among those on the same side in support of the ETH being the most favorable hypothesis. HAHAHA!

Well there is varying opinions and then there is calling someone like Vallee a "disinfo agent" and then go on complaining that "science" doesn't take the topic seriously. Its a perpetual whirlwind of confusion. If someone like Vallee is treated with such distain, what are the chances "main stream science" will "come out and truly get to work"? Lets face it, you aren't interested in science unless science will validate your beliefs. The only purpose "science" is serving is having something to complain about. That's why nobody can identify who these "scientists" are. Its a never ending cycle of pointing fingers and complaining. Lets be honest, you guys believe in the ETH and reject science. There is no "science" or group of "scientists" that's going to confirm your beliefs. Get over it.

Oh and I still stand by that post of mind on Vallee. I considered what he was peddling in that article (dancing around the ETH) as crap then, and it still is now.

I respect that.

a reply to: dragonridr

Unidentified objects probably goes back 100s of thousands of years.

We'll never know, writing was invented about 5200 years ago.
Cave paintings go back about 35,000 years.

But ET didn't show up until movies like Spielberg that told us what they are supposed to look like. Just like earlier UFOs were cigar shaped.

Not true. Discussions of extraterrestrials was common by the 17th century, Milton wrote about them in Paradise Lost in 1667.
You can go back much further, to first-century writers.

Or did you mean ETs didn't come to Earth until Spielberg?
That's not true, either.

The Mystery Airships sightings and abduction attempts took place all around the US in 1896 and 1897.
That's before Spielberg's grandparents were born. Before motion pictures.

Budd Hopkins documented an abduction case, involving the greys, that dated to the 1920s.
Betty Hill was taken in 1961.
I was first abducted in 1966.
Steven Spielberg made Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1977.

As for your claim that early reports were all cigar shaped,
that isnt entirely true.

Here are some flying saucer / disc shaped craft reports from the 1920s:

"Date: 1922
Location: Davenport, Iowa
Time: daylight
Summary: Twin girls aged 8 see a daylight disc UFO near Davenport.


Date: 1925
Location: Moora, Australia
Time:
Summary: Two teenagers stumbled upon a saucer-shaped shimmering object resting on four legs in a paddock near. They ran off in fear.


Date: 1926
Location: Mongolia
Time:
Summary: During his expedition explorer Nicholas Roerich and members of his caravan, caught sight of a huge oval-shaped object high in the sky. It had a shiny surface that reflected the sun on one side and moved at great speed north to south.


Date: Nov., 1928
Location: Milton, N.D.
Time:
Summary: A UFO, round “like an inverted soup plate,” sped overhead emitting rays of light which illuminated the ground and startled cattle.
Source: NICAP UFO Evidence, 1964, Hall"

These reports can be found here:

www.thinkaboutitdocs.com...

Just look at sightings did you know they increase after major movie releases?

This Huffington Post article from 2011 says that UFO sightings reported to MUFON's database increased by 67% over the previous three years, from 300 a month to over 500 a month.
I'm not sure how that would fit with your movie theory.
Although I have no trouble believing that a popular movie about aliens might cause viewers to look up at the night sky more often than they previously did. That would be a natural reaction.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian


oh absolutely. If it were me that said those things...or Jim Oberg, what would be the reaction?

Whatever stance you took would be acknowledged and accepted, agreement not withstanding. No one (or at least I)would care enough to go dig up old posts regurgitating already understood stances.

Well there is varying opinions and then there is calling someone like Vallee a "disinfo agent" and then go on complaining that "science" doesn't take the topic seriously. Its a perpetual whirlwind of confusion. If someone like Vallee is treated with such distain, what are the chances "main stream science" will "come out and truly get to work"? Lets face it, you aren't interested in science unless science will validate your beliefs. The only purpose "science" is serving is having something to complain about. That's why nobody can identify who these "scientists" are. Its a never ending cycle of pointing fingers and complaining. Lets be honest, you guys believe in the ETH and reject science. There is no "science" or group of "scientists" that's going to confirm your beliefs. Get over it.

My issue was mainly with the article in my post in which he uses weak assumptions to support a scientific premise in his arguments against the ET hypothesis. The one track mindedness and omission of important variables in these arguments make his conclusions appear to severely lack in depth. Basically it's a pathetic attempt to find any way possible (no matter how absurd) to discount the ETH with what I consider obnoxious reasoning. Upon pointing out these flaws, this is not something I would expect from a world renowned researcher and because of that, I can't help but to suspect if there is some kind of ulterior motive going on to sway those unsuspecting away from the strong possibility of ET visitation. It gives me the inclination of him being apart of a suppression campaign, or disinformant. So there you have it, from my point of view.

I will say this....earlier in his career I had no complaints. I've even posted some old vids of him to back me up in certain cases before but something happened somewhere down the line.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: dragonridr

Here's a good paper to get started on. It's interesting to note that people that have not been exposed to the alien methos are never abducted by alienS. Strange apparently you have to know about aliens to be abducted by them. Wonder how they could possible know that.

I don't think this is the least bit true, people from all around the globe report encountering the same types of alien beings, and describe the same procedures, and some of these reports go back to the 1920s.
Of course, that's simply limiting the discussion to the modern era, there are cave paintings that bear a great similarity to these alien beings.

Unidentified objects probably goes back 100s of thousands of years. But ET didn't show up until movies like Spielberg that told us what they are supposed to look like. Just like earlier UFOs were cigar shaped. Not surprising since dirigibles were the latest scientific enventions. What ever is in pop culture and Sci first is magically what people see sure it's just a coincidence of course.

Just look at sightings did you know they increase after major movie releases?

Not true at all. An ET hit a guy's windmill on April 19, 1897 in Aurora Texas. The creature was small, big head, big eyes, just like what has been reported in thousands of cases.
It was buried along with some wreckage, with other wreckage buried elsewhere, and MUFON actually went there to exhume the grave to find out once and for all. They used a metal detector above the grave and it read metallic readings, so they made a request to exhume the grave, but it was denied.

The next day they went back and discovered the grave had been dug up and even the head stone was gone. On the head stone was a carving of a little flying saucer which was made back when the incident occurred.

It looks like a lot of the assumptions you make about this topic are based on faulty information, or is it just that you make presumptions based on how you feel about the subject?

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Go ahead, place your faith in what the witnesses have to say....that's if they remember anything. No wait, that won't even matter because they'll most likely be ridiculed anyway as having "perception problems". In that sense, it won't even matter if ET is inconspicuous or not, they have humans who will attempt to debunk the sighting anyway. Thanks to that, problem solved for them with only minimal effort put in. They can afford to be as blatant as they want.

"Faith" is the key word. When someone tells a story of alien abduction, I need more than faith to believe the story. Alien visitation wouldn't be a trivial event to me and shouldn't be treated so. Taking abduction stories purely at face value and requiring nothing more, is treating it like a common every day occurrence. The fact is, unless you're experiencing it with the person, you have no more idea if the story is fabricated than I do. Also, a personal encounter doesn't by default make other stories true. You should still be questioning and not blindly believing. That's why I questioned the connection to Scdfa.

Electronical interference nonsensical you say? I see. It's more like you just outright ignoring the fact that military craft as well as automobile functions have been rendered inoperable when in close proximity to ufos, which indicate electronical interference capabilities.

The entire process of having to come up with excuses on top of excuses is nonsensical. They're either here or they're not. It seems for 65+ years, they are in a perpetual state of kinda here. There's nothing definitive. They come here and want to be inconspicuous, but they are kinda seen. They remove the memories of abductions, but that only kinda works, and so on. You have to toss out many convenient excuses for these apparently not-so-smart aliens.

The only connection I have to Scdfa is the fact that our objectives are similar, the raising of awareness. That much should be obvious by now.

Scdfa has only given bits and pieces of his story. Are you basing your belief in his story completely on faith?
And by the way- How is your method of raising awareness on the forum working out for you and Scdfa?