"Why do you consider people who claim alien encounters t to be liars or fakes?"
Asking that question means that you have never read any of the five books that I have published on the subject. What I have clearly stated is that an account from one person with no corroboration cannot be considered as evidence. Do I read or listen to those accounts? Of course I do because they may not offer proof but there could be aspects that only someone who studies these cases recognise.
Most You Tubers put out "alien abduction" or UFO videos for one reason and one reason only; they get a lot of views. Views means money so the fact that they spin out a tale proven to have been a hoax 50 years ago does not matter. The fact that when they do tend to stick to facts and a case is very clearly sleep paralysis or an altered state incident they say that the case can be dismissed as such "but this isn't the case" with no evidence to state why it isn't.
Many cases are psychological in nature where the person involved only "realises that they are a life long UFO abductee" after reading a book on the subject. Things then spin out of control as I have shown so many times on this blog and in my books. The fact that images of a "Grey" alien in a book leads them to say "That's it! Tat's what I saw!"but when asked to draw or describe the "alien" they saw they come up with different details to the image they saw. There are, at my last counting, 20 all different images of a "true grey". Read Many Shades of Grey https://aeceiiikp.blogspot.com/2022/11/many-shades-of-greys.html
"Why would these people lie about such a thing?" Money. Notoriety. TV appearances -the list goes on. The other reason is because they believe what they are reporting and there are many examples of this (check out my first book for an explanation of "Ruth Syndrome"). They are NOT "mental" in any way and Ruth Syndrome appears to be something that affects people in all walks of life. Ufologists are just playing at looking for the truth behind UFOs and most are not equipped to fill in a report form themselves. So knowing about psychology and "other stuff" is of no interest and they will even tell percipients that they only saw what they thought they saw because it was a "screen image" planted in their memory to hide the fact that Greys were involved😒
I have cited cases involving just one percipient (again showing that those asking the afore mentioned question have never read my books).. Low credibility but then how does one explain all the symptoms of radiation poisoning in someone picking blackberries in the middle of the countryside? Some ground traces on examination could not be explained by official investigators (NOT Ufologists). At the same time as the person has their brief encounter and passes out people in the area hear strange sounds, an unknown object -also seen by people in cars some distance from the encounter site. All reported as flying saucer sightings before the actual entity encounter is known. That bumps up credibility somewhat. You take each case as reported and look at the facts as well as, if you can, communicate with the percipient.
What people are ignoring in my books (which they have not read!) is that I am presenting cases that are hard or impossible to explain away. Where there are secondary witnesses to an object flying above a car as well as physiological effects and even some trace evidence. There are some very little known cases in which details corroborate details in later cases yet the original report was unknown and not published. It is how you can find corroboration about entity appearances not noted before.
Small, dome headed entities were known before the whole "Grey" explosion but they were NOT "Greys" and they were not carrying out generational abductions and including here past life abductions and "in the womb" incidents. Why do people not take Ufology seriously? Also, anyone who claims to be a 25, 35 or 40 years "UFO veteran" and have no ideas or interest in entity cases is a total waste of space.
Present a data base of credible (as credible as it can be) evidence for encounters and just hope that people or even people in the scientific community have enough interest to read, maybe even double check sources.
It is 50 years since I started out looking at these cases and back in the 1970s Adamski and contactees were still given far more credibility that UFO percipients.
Sadly, not much has changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment