The Disclosure Project

[leopold]

Time after time this happened Duendy, with educated individuals, trained to look objectively at the world and many of them, consistently got it wrong. I don't trust eye witness testimony. It is not patronising. It is not dismissive. It is realistic.

computers are a picky lot when it comes to syntax

as a matter of fact syntax errors are the first errors to be experienced in programming.

 

[Gustav]

On the contrary, you have implied some very definite beliefs in the way you have described the object.

what remained unasked of heliocentric....was actual flight observed? instead, an irrational assumption was formulated by ophiolite that the insect had to be at rest. a clue was even given..."small flying creatures with wings" (heliocentric). the implication favors motion rather than rest.

so what have we here?
a clue riskily ignored
an assumption hastily made
rash and very unscientific
just like the crackpots

why the need for such delicacy when we have enough observation and knowledge of insects to safely make the assumption that it is indeed capable of flight?

or that columbus had some knowledge of homo sapiens to safely assume the red indians were human and not some alien species at first glance?

long and transclucent? narrow body? i am almost certain it will fly even though actual flight had not been observed

the description also has to be taken in context
to whom/how/why are you communicating with?
are you submitting a thesis? making a police report? legal document? or chatting with a friend? all of these will influence manner of presentation.

 

[heliocentric]

On the contrary, you have implied some very definite beliefs in the way you have described the object.
You state that is had wings: today we find wings on birds, insects/bugs, aeroplanes. In each case they are associated with flight. Stating that the object you saw had wings clearly implies your belief that these wing-like objects were related to flight.
In a similar way the body suggests a life form, or a constructed device that contains something. Again, belief is very clearly implied.

I think youre stretching what constitutes belief way too far, and i think most would agree with me.
As a test you could ask the nearest person to you 'what do you believe in?'
id be willing to bet that theyd name something which is partially unexplainable and requires a certain degree of faith in order to except its existance.
You could ask people in the street the same question to people in the street all day and i dont think youd find one person who would name a self-evident truth learnt from birth like 'humans have legs' or 'cars are for travelling in'.
Those arnt beliefs atall, if youre going to read any common observation or mental note as a belief then everything becomes a belief...i believe im typing on this computer i believe im talking to you now, the word ceases to have any value or meaningful context.

I have no problem with you saying you saw something with long translucent features that looked like wings. Or, that the thing you observed appeared to have a body. Then you would be describing your experience.

But if ive seen nth number of wings or nth number of insect bodies and can mentally cross reference what ive seen to the other insects ive witnessed then why shouldnt i relate my experience with the knowledge that ive experienced enough other insects to accurately judge what ive observed?
Otherwise youre entering the realms of the absurd, meeting a friend down the pub... 'i saw someone that appeared to be our friend john earlier. He looked like he was holding what seemed to be a mobile phone'

This is precisely what most reported UFO observations fail to do: objectively describe what they have seen. Instead, from before they begin to vocalise the experience they are already interpreting what they see and assigning provisional meaning. That's what humans do.
That is why eye witness testimony is so unreliable, not because people knowingly lie, but because they make the same error that you did in relation to the 'novel' insect.

I see where youre comming from, but to return to the original point you cant imply a belief from what is actually a judgment call or assessment, its entirely the wrong word to be using. If you want to say any observation is open to interpretational errors then yes i'll accept that but i dont think you can enter faith into the equation every time as Skin Walker was atempting to do in his earlier post.

 

[heliocentric]

Spherical or saucer-shaped, like what I witnessed that one time. As it has been for quite some time. Propulsion? Silent? Capable of propelling something to extremely high speeds, back and forth, barely giving time for it to change trajectory, yet seemingly not skipping a beat?
Brava, Mrs. Blank, BRAVA!!!!




All extremely tired explanations. YAWN! What?!?! ANOTHER UFO??? I don't have to get up for this one! It's Venus, obviously! After all, Occam's Razor tells us this!

I believe dear Gustav once said this not too long ago:

Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out.

No kidding?

From a short article about that case:



Of course, Occam tells us that Mr. Callahan is probably an exaggerator (Irish too? Probably a drunk!!!). Thanks, Ockham. You're such a knowledgeable guy!
CASE SOLVED! No need to look at the radar records! No need to take the pilots' accounts at face value! Let's just rest easy, shall we, knowing that ALL PEOPLE are either deceiving, or being deceived.

Again I say, CASE CLOSED on this one, folk!

Ive got no idea what your post was about maybe you meant to quote someone else?

 

[Gustav]

belief due to its association with god, has always existed in this particular forum as a weapon of denigration

i utter this in absolute certitude

 

[Giambattista]

You know, I saw the quarter-moon tonight, but I'm tempted to think it was actually Venus being distorted by a mirage low to the horizon.
I don't know. I'm such a poor observer. Humans are so easily fooled.
Do you think that will float? Like a bloated corpse?

 

[Giambattista]

belief due to its association with god, has always existed in this particular forum as a weapon of denigration

i utter this in absolute certitude

Atheists/materialists may not have a god, per se, but why is that they act wholeheartedly as if they were under the watchful eye of one?
I mean, they have this absolute religious zeal to smash any sandcastles of belief people should build around religion, paranormal experiences, etc, all the while acting as if they themselves will be held accountable to their own god for believing in such things, or allowing others to believe in them, whether these beliefs are founded or not.

 

[Gustav]

i am sometimes struck by the similarity in argument propounded by the skeptics with the ones the right wing fascists present over in the political forums.

the themes appear to be the same

hmm
must google for any evidences of linkage

 

[Giambattista]

Perhaps they are gods unto themselves?

 

[SkinWalker]

It sounds like your problem with the disclosure project is in reality a problem you have with the ufo community in general. I think its a unfair blanket statement to claim that anyone interested in ufos has no interest in objectivity.

That isn't what I meant to imply and, if this is what you inferred, I freely retract that sentiment. I mean to say that most people who have an active (rather than passing) interest in UFOs have deficits in their ability to process information objectively.

I cant see what basis youd have to believe that people who are talking about ufos are simply using it as short-hand for 'alien spacecraft' unless you can read the mind of anyone talking about or professing an interest in ufos.

One need not be able to 'read the mind' of members of the so-called "ufo community" to clearly infer that their meaning is that "ufo" refers to the space-alien hypothesis. But this point need not be made with regard to this thread since we are speaking of the "disclosure project," the cult-leader of which clearly states his beliefs:

The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. We have over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret.

Clearly, anyone who "testifies" for Greer and his "project" are buying into his intent and beliefs. There may be an exception or two, but do you really think they are ignorant as to his beliefs?

I havent come across any witness accounts recounting other people's stories unless youve come across any and can copy and paste some quotes for me.

I certainly will. Once I'm able to access my own pc again as I'm currently away from home. I do have, however, the entire "disclosure document" in both pdf and Word format.

thats a rather strange thing to say, that comes across to me as 'anyone who sees a ufo must have a delusional belief since ufos dont really exist'
Reading between the lines in some of your posts thats the increasing impression im getting.

Your perceptions notwithstanding, the statement remains valid: some (perhaps even most) obviously believe what they are implying. They are implying, very clearly, that space aliens are among us and they are in agreement with <s>Prophet</s> Profit Greer who is asserting that space aliens are here; world governments know about them and have interacted with them; and that many advanced technologies are a direct result.

Moreover, delusion is looked upon by the believer in a given supernatural or paranormal phenomenon as a pejorative label. However, delusion is something that anyone can fall victim to. Delusion is a function of belief and the brain's ability to discern what its senses tell it. If one observes an extraordinary event, the brain's experience with what it sees is limited or non-existant. Belief of what occurred is therefore influenced by pre-existing beliefs and assumptions. If three people a half a mile apart see a light in the sky, one may see a recognized atmospheric or astronomic phenomenon; another might equate a sign from a god; still another might see an alien spaceship. -not that these are the only possibilities. The only way to know for sure which is right is to verify or test one of the three hypotheses, yet the only one of the three that *is* testable or verifiable (to date) is the first. The god and space alien hypotheses are, to date, supernatural and/or paranormal. While each are possible, only the first has any precedence and is therefore the most probable of the three.

I dont think the project goes as far as to disclose information about race, its really irrevelvant i think and a complete non-issue.

Someone not educated in social dynamics and culture might, indeed, dismiss cultural and social trends. So might someone who *is* educated or familiar with such dynamics but unwilling to accept hypotheses that run contrary to their preconceived belief. This is confirmation bias and not consistent with a true scientific perspective. If you've seen the video, you would see that "disclosure" of the "project's" socio-cultural trends was there albeit unintentional.

As for rank it certainly holds alot more weight to hear someone with status/position than without, who would you be more inclined to believe someone with nothing to lose or something with everything to lose?

Again, I must object to "something" versus "nothing" in what may be "to lose." This is a very elitist position and assumes that the livelihoods and social status among peers is somehow less valuable to those who haven't attained rank in society. This is demonstrably a false assumption, for if it were valid, public officials would avoid scandal and corruption because the have "something more to lose" than the average school teacher or gas station owner. The fact is, these people do have passions that get them in loads of trouble and it is often a matter of public record. Jeri Ryan's Senate candidate husband is a good example. This is an appeal to authority and a fallacy of the worst kind. Moreover, it would seem that many if not most of the "witnesses" aren't currently in their positions of status, so I don't see what they have "to lose" with regard to anyone else in society.

Eye-witness testimonies can always be suspect yes, that is if you have can think of a reason to suspect youre being lied to. If you cant think of a good enough (plausible) reason then suspicion starts to become a little baseless and more of trait within the person scrutinising the data.

The most compelling reason of all: bias to a belief system. Again, this is the very point I made in an earlier post and even gave examples.

As for testimonies being useless... definitely not, eye-witness testimonies are used every day in hearings and in courtrooms. Which is presicley the context that greer seeks this information to be used.

And these testimonies are coroborated by physical evidence. Rarely is an eyewitness testimony given that doesn't have other evidence. Indeed, I'd challenge you to show a single court case that included a felony conviction based solely on the testimony of an eyewitness. That having been said, science does not follow the flawed process of the law. It relies on testable and verifiable evidence. Courtrooms are places where opposing counsels work to sell their positions to a body of individuals. It is based on influencing or taking advantage of beliefs or pre-established assumptions.

I never suggested we should discount belief but we should differentiate between an 1. 'experience' - which doesnt have to say anything tell us anything beyond whats been expeirenced. 2. An idea/theory - i.e. 'i had an expeirence i think xyz may be possibilites worth considering when trying to understand what i saw.' And 3. belief - 'i had an experience im now convinced that i have an explaination that fits what i saw despite not being in possesion of any full clear evidence.

As is clearly demonstrated in literature cited in a thread which I linked to in an earlier post, we know that belief about a given event is a function of one's familiarity with the experience. If it is an unusual or rare event, then the brain searches for analogs or ontological assumptions that already exist in the mind of the person observing the event. In otherwords, what the person thinks is being experienced isn't necessarily an accurate description of what actually occurred. And, indeed, the event itself is very much subject to unintentional embellishment following the event as the brain continues to work on the observations, trying to fit that which was observed into new ontological templates or existing ones.

Unfortunately, popular culture tends to develop ontological templates based on fictions very readily. This is seen in the mythologies of extant and extinct cutlures of technical abilities that range from foragers to jet-setters. American culture includes pop-cultural phenomena like X-Files and Stargate, in which one can see a feedback loop where fiction meets urban myth and each are influenced or fed by the other.

When you apply an unexpected event or unfamiliar occurrance of a strange phenomenon, to someone who is already familiar with pop-cultural myths and fictions like X-Files or UFOs (which is a pop-culture phenomenon, whether you choose to acknowlege that fact or not), the result is that the only ontological templates the observer has to access are fictive.

If this hypothesis of fictive ontological templates is true, then we would expect to see a decreased occurrance of UFO reports among those that are experienced at observing the sky. Incidently, the reports of UFOs among amateur astronomers and meteorologists is not consistent with the reports of less experienced observers.

You cant simply lump everyone whos seen a ufo into the third catagory and presume and that all ufo-witnesses have ended up as quasi-religious ufo nuts.

And I don't think I have. I do, however, note that there are very clear corolations between groups of proponents in the ETI-UFO hypothesis and religious cults: the Raelians, Heaven's Gate, and the Disclosure Project each have specific religious-like markers.

Intellectual honesty or dishonesty is neither here nor there if youre when youre going to take a statement like 'we know ufos exist' and spin it in your head so youve heard what you want to hear.

I'll leave you with your semantics and diverge from here. That most of the UFO community equate space aliens to the term "UFO" is clear. One need only read the jackets of the most popular UFO literature or click on any of the most popular UFO websites and see pictures and descriptions of space aliens and speculations of what their intentions are. You are free to disagree with my assertion, but you'll never quantify or qualify your refution by simply saying that isn't what's implied by "UFO" when the evidence says otherwise. I certainly am not commenting now or previously on what your beliefs are with regard to the term "UFO," I'm only establishing that the term "UFO" with regard to this thread, the "Disclosure Project" and the UFO community in general refers to space aliens.

supernatural means something that exists beyond the realms of nature or at least our understanding of it, if aliens do exist then theres absolutely nothing 'super'natural about them atall, they would be living entities with genes, dna, cells etc...they would be more than comprehensible to us.

Ah, but we aren't discussing the beings that may or may not live on extra-solar worlds. We're discussing the space aliens that are alleged to have visited Earth. These aliens appear to exist only in mytholoy and fiction and not in reality. Their characteristics are supernatural. I will concede, however, that should it be discovered in the future that these space aliens where, in fact, visiting our planet and remaining hidden, then they are natural. But when the entire body of lore that surrounds space aliens is examined, it has all the characteristics of supernatural mythology that we see throughout human literature and oral tradition. Until they can be physically tested or observed, they are -for all intents and purposes- supernatural. If they aren't, I challenge you to show me the DNA (or whatever molecular equivalent they may have) of one. Show me any physical evidence that exists of any space alien, and I will imediately retract the position that these are supernatural beings.

As for empircal examination who knows, if aliens are visiting this planet then an examination may well have occured but i certainly wouldnt expect it to be publically available information.

Of course not. It would run contrary to the belief system that you appear to have established, which includes that conspiracy must exist, therefore the the stories of space aliens must be true. This is, however, my opinion based on what I've inferred from your posts, so no need to refute it, I freely admit it may be wrong.

someone whos seen a ufo or had an experience of one doesnt have to 'believe' anything atall which is the point i keep making.
For example if im walking in the amazon and i see an insect ive never seen before, and describe to my friend the 'long translucent wings' the.. 'thin tapered blue body'. I dont suddenly have a belief in an exotic insect, im not a believer in small flying creatures with wings...ive mearly described my experience, nothing more nothing less.

Again, we've addressed the semantics of the "UFO" term to death. The technical definition of "UFO" is well understood. But to conclude, I don't subscribe to the intellectual dishonesty of crying afoul when UFO is equated to space aliens since this is clearly the colloquial definition. Indeed, the very term UFO -unidentified flying object- is already an assumption and therefore establishes a belief. It establishes that that, which has yet to be identified, is both flying and an object. The semantics of your argument don't wash and aren't accepted by anyone with a critical and objective viewpoint. The space alien believer with a bit of intellectual aptitude will, however, use this semantic argument to distract from the overall woo-woo nature of the space alien hypothesis.

No most (or at least a lot of ufos) that we're talking about in this context are offen spherical, saucer shaped, or triangular with a metalic smooth quality and seem to use a propulsion method relying on something entirely different from jet engines or what would normally be used to enable flight.

They are perceived as spherical, saucer shaped, metalic, etc. One cannot say this empirically unless additional, objective observations could be made. What is observed is mostly a limited perspective, from which assumptions are made. Most of the assumptions are made with regard to belief: belief about what "metalic" looks like from a distance in a set of given atmospheric and temporal conditions, for instance. These assumptions aren't science but pseudoscience.

We have plenty of these types of craft on film, long long gone are the days where a ufo is probably a weather baloon or a hallucination, or venus on a clear night. We know these types of craft exist, so its not simply a question of attaching the old labels wed useally attach to something we see in the sky.

Interestingly enough, the availablity, quantity and quality of camaras has increased yet the images of UFOs has decreased (or at least has appeared to). Balloons, Venus, hallucinations, delusions, atmospheric phenomena, etc. continue to be announced as UFOs.

Its pretty clear theres a new type of technology in use in the form of these types of craft,

No. It is assumed that there is a "new type of technology." To qualify your statement of "pretty clear," you would need to show empirical evidence.

As ive pointed out its entirely wrong to assume that everyone within the ufo community or has simply seen one is a believer of extra-terrestrials.

And, again, that isn't what I've said. But I stand by the assertion that most do. An assertion I'm confident you can only refute by saying "it isn't true" and not by providing quantifying data.

 

[Gustav]

I'm only establishing that the term "UFO" with regard to this thread, the "Disclosure Project" and the UFO community in general refers to space aliens.

i agree. i for one equate ufo with et tho i frequently end up irritated at my carelessness. this is an excellent instance why any serious discussion or debate must have the terms defined and agreed upon

unless of course one want to make semantics the issue

 

[SkinWalker]

The semantics of the terminology deserves to be an issue. It could even make for a good discussion. But the terminology was already agreed upon by the OP when the Disclosure Project was made the topic of discussion.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: A number of off-topic posts have been deleted from this thread.

Try to stay on-topic, people.

 

[moementum7]

I understand why you are saying what you are saying, and I appreciate the measured way in which you are saying it. [Ready for the other shoe?]
However, poppycock.
Let us agree that probably all actions are in some way or other selfish. But you imply that one is either for or against. I doubt you actually mean this - if SW values your contributions you must have some sense - but that is very clearly what you imply. It is entirely possible to be open minded on the topic, yet to view the Disclosure Project with disdain.

I have no idea if other life exists in the Universe, though I think it is almost certain.
I have no idea of if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe, though I think it probable.
I have no idea if intelligent life exists in this galaxy, though I think it possible.
I have no idea if intelligent life has visited this planet, though I think it may well have happened.
I have no idea if intelligent life is still visiting this planet, though I think it is very unlikley.
I am pretty certain that all of the sightings that have been reported are explicable in terms of all the usual suspects.

Each day I hope against hope that I shall be proven wrong on the last point. But just as I may hope that those six little numbers show up on the lottery draw I know the odds are against it.

So, I don't want the evidence, when and if it does appear, rejected because it gets lumped with the mountain of spurious sitings. The evidence contained in The Disclosure Project that I have seen is of very poor quality. Greer is, as SW suggests, either a conman, or deluded. I do not have the entire project to assess, but I am working on a reasonable assumption that the tasters in his site would contain some of the better examples. What is presented is of such low quality that it does not auger well for the main mass of material.

And yet material of this sort is muddying the waters for what could be the most important event in humanity's history since we stepped down onto the East African plains. I do not wish to see that event obscured. I do not wish to see a search for robotic 'sentries', which may have been left in the solar system to observe, receive no serious consideration because of the nutters associated with things like the Disclosure Project. The Disclosure Project flies in the face of those wishing to see an openminded, scientific approach to this problem. I condemn it utterly.

Great post.
I understand your point of view.

 

[moementum7]

Didn't really plan on coming back so soon, looks like this thread has been busy, some great balanced discussion, the rest...well, the same as usual.

Just having a few laughs and came across this.
Looks like Peter Jennings has the same view point as me.
There are definitely crafts/ufo's, just a matter of wtf is controlling them.

"I believe there are ufo's, I'm just not sure who's driving them."
Peter Jennings.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=12471


P.S. Good perspective Helio

 

[qwerty mob]

Dr. Greer's work is sober and sincere, but a little misguided. The "truth" (reasonable skepticism, rather) is that very few individuals are in a position to evaluate documented "real" unknown threats; so I don't think he has "enough" to force any kind of "real disclosure" on this subject. At best, he'll get to arrange for several individuals to tell of their experiences in a court room, and at worst could quite literally have everyone involved thrown in jail without due process, property seized, fines assessed, the whole nine yards.

"Litigation is the worst form of villainy because it is such sanctimonious and ritualized pontification that it renders ordinary men stupid, their lawyers wealthy, and their creditors powerful, and then heck... they own the Judge."

...

Pardon my cynicism... for that was my optimism.

 

[Giambattista]

Did I even comment on Dr. Greer? Funny, I forgot we were "discussing" the Disclosure Project.

My honest opinion is that he may well be wasting his time. I have no doubt that the US government (probably more than any other) has a significant amount of information on UFOs and the possible underlying cause (yes, I'm referring to INTELLIGENT control of some of them).
However, I'm skeptical about the positive impact any official revelations may have.

As a side note, I remember the Daily Show making fun of him once. Not the typical fun poking, but it seemed more serious than usual. I thought it was a little stupid.

 

[Giambattista]

Just having a few laughs and came across this.
Looks like Peter Jennings has the same view point as me.
There are definitely crafts/ufo's, just a matter of wtf is controlling them.

"I believe there are ufo's, I'm just not sure who's driving them."
Peter Jennings.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=12471

Funny link.

What was with that documentary? I saw most of the second half of it, but the show managed to piss off a bunch of people. Mainly, ufologists (oh, poor woo-woos ) who were interviewed (dozens of them) for a hours and hours of total footage of these interviews, only to have a small handful of these clips shown. If I remember correctly, some people also complained about how they were cut up, important things being omitted, etc.

A real hatchet job was done on Budd Hopkins in the show's segment on UFO abductions. The witnesses were OK, but then we have the off-the-wall proclamations about sleep paralysis being the explanation coupled with hypnosis to generate false testimony from the witnesses. All the data provided by Budd about the fact that many abductions don't take place in bed (think Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton, etc), that there are many cases when more than one person is abducted (is sleep paralysis contagious?), that at least 30% of abduction investigations do not involve hypnosis, and there are physical markings, was left on the cutting room floor. Budd has worked with over 600 abductees. Had the 2 Harvard psychologists worked with more than a dozen?

Interesting. A "fair and objective" analysis which touts the results of a single psychological study with a small number of self-selected "abductees" without allowing for evidence to the contrary. After all, one shouldn't put woo-woos in the spotlight; it only encourages them.

Or how bout the part where the SETI scientist is fooled by the moon for a minute or two, thinking it is a bonified UFO until the clouds clear to reveal the plain truth, and then implying that this is true in every case, more or less.

I'd laugh, but I haven't the strength. Must eat more popcorn.

 

[SkinWalker]

"Fair and objective" doesn't mean that every kook and woo-woo gets air-time for their fantasies. It means giving a fair look at the claims that have evidence. The Jennings show went far and beyond this, since they looked at many claims that had only eyewitness accounts and gave very little air time to the reasonable explanations or the eyewitness accounts that differed from the woo-woo (there were several that saw 'planes').

 

[Gustav]

jumping on moe's bandwagon, i too have to commend this post as pertinent, fairly thoughtfully presented and quite touching really.

I have no idea if other life exists in the Universe, though I think it is almost certain.
I have no idea of if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe, though I think it probable.
I have no idea if intelligent life exists in this galaxy, though I think it possible.
I have no idea if intelligent life has visited this planet, though I think it may well have happened.
I have no idea if intelligent life is still visiting this planet, though I think it is very unlikley.
I am pretty certain that all of the sightings that have been reported are explicable in terms of all the usual suspects.

Each day I hope against hope that I shall be proven wrong on the last point. But just as I may hope that those six little numbers show up on the lottery draw I know the odds are against it...........

i must however take issue with a few of the points presented...

I have no idea if intelligent life has visited this planet, though I think it may well have happened.(oafy)

*the timeline of et visitations. if "it may well have happened.", i must ask for the basis of this assumption. could it be the alleged historical references? or could it be to the more recent reports of aliens? perhaps both? while it is a simple logical and statistical exercise to postulate the existence of an advanced et society somewhere out there in the universe, the same methodology cannot be utilized in the "contact/visit" hypothesis. additional data is required and usually consists of eyewitness accounts of varying credibility and perhaps, inconclusive physical evidence (i forget)

I have no idea if intelligent life is still visiting this planet, though I think it is very unlikley.(oafy)

extremely arbitrary, our dictates are not alien ones. an alien compulsion to visit is something beyond our control since we have not even determined, conclusively, an actual existence for the visitors.

if present in the past, there is no logical reason to preclude from the present or future

am pretty certain that all of the sightings that have been reported are explicable in terms of all the usual suspects. (oafy)

it is more than likely that at least one out of the numerous reports of et crafts is accurate. and that is all it takes. just one unimpeachable source. if it turned out to be you, you would not doubt your senses. i ask that you place that same level of confidence in another human's account of events. not blindly but with respect and dignity. that said....trust but verify (if possible)

to put in another way, humans are not nearly as wacko as the apa (or bps in your case) would have you believe

if SW values your contributions

sage? or not sage?

oh
and this...(edit)

I have no idea if intelligent life exists in this galaxy, though I think it possible. (oafy)

irrelevant and unecessary restriction. possible but maybe not probable. expand galaxy into universe and it is then quite probable plus has the additional benefit of jiving with the rest of the points