First off - Thanks for talking the time to answer my posts in so much detail - I do realise it streatches your patience somewhat
What I have witnessed here is indeed, best evidence. The Phoenix lights I feel now exclude ET as a possibility. And that be the aim of this thread - to determine best evidence. Best evidence is right under our noses on that one.
I do not think the large majority enter water bodies, I have heard reports of UFO's "sucking up" water, that is a markedly different description. I do think many are lying or deluded, one of the first argument you hear, and one we will hear about here no doubt is the Christopher Columbus tale, which is plainly not ET. Also, by deluded, I am not thinking like the cat lady on the Simpson's, but forced into an alternate mindset by way of personal preference and pop culture. Many are simply drawn to the ideal of ET, and that is good enough for them, and we have seen such here *cough viper2 cough* There may be one or two intriguing tales, but I do think the majority can be explained here on earth, and the strong minority where total sightings are tallied. As such, I can put those fewer instances down to embellishment. I do feel that you have a tendency to believe people's personal interpretations quite readily as opposed to looking at the many possibilities? Who are "all these people" that you believe saw something that cannot be readily explained? Personal interpretation skews investigation, as an example, I woud cite that some still claim the failed rocket launches, like the more recent example from Norway, are alien dimensional vortexes. How are you determining the zealots from the genuine articles here. Should they not all be regarded as simply a UFO, and then we take the step to ET, Natural Phenomena or other? Albeit that step might be our discussion, but I get the impression that you are pushing that some are likely Alien, which is an assumption and at this point no more than a preference. I do not think you can move forward with investigation based on such a loose assumption, as I do not see what else has been seriously considered. Peoples first impressions might be good enough for you (I mean that in a respectful way), but personally I need more meat in that sandwich.
More specific answers would include,
* Perhaps initial arrival occured a thousand years ago (or any other time we couldn't have detected their arrival
* Perhaps initial arrival was well stealthed.
* Perhaps initial arrival was detected. It's not as if ufos haven't ever been detected from space. (Sorry i can't link examples off the top of my head but even if I could it doesn't matter as there may even be cases that are simply not made public knowledge)
* Perhaps they evolved here.
To say that many are deluded or mistaken or lying simply ignores the many they aren't simply couldn't be. Is it at all possible you haven't read as many cases as I have? I somehow doubt it but we're not talking a handful here, we're talking about hundreds of sightings...
Your post about alternate mindset by way of personal preference and pop culture simply doesn't fit some sightings.
When scientists who don't believe the ETH see a UFO that changes their view to that of unkown highly advanced craft, you can't put that sighting into the category of mistaken or dellueded! Of course I know they might still be lying but once again, this isn't happening just once or twice!
What I am not seeing is why ET always the first instance, let alone at all? Where is the tie in past "we cannot do that". How do these people reporting things like this know the forefront of technology, and what is being experimented on at the moment? How do they rule out all other processes? ET is but one possibility, and to me way down the list when saddled on it's own supporting evidence
I'll take your word for it that there's a large crowd who do believe they crash and that they are based in the ocean but i still don't see how this is a good reason to discount the possibility that something is hiding in our oceans.
I'm not picking and choosing the way you think I am.
I'm trying to whittle down the possibilities and just like a skeptic refuses to believe in the ETH, I refuse to rule out a possibility that has not be proven false.
Let's, for argument's sake say, that it is ET.... We can't possibly know why they do what they do!
Perhaps having their bases hidden is the only major concern?
Perhaps they want to be seen as part of a slow 'getting us used to them' startegy?
Also, don't forget I'm not ruling out that they aren't some secret military project.
If you believe that hundreds, possibly thousands, of witnesses aren't lying/mistaken/delluded then you have to believe there are unkown craft flying around. If there are unkown craft flying around then they could be secret man-made projects, time travelors, interdimensional or ET.
As I mentioned before, I'm as loathe to rule out ET as a skeptic is to rule them in. (Which, btw, is not what I am doing, I am merely asking a series of 'what ifs'....)
How are you proposing they do hide? If using this as a solution, surely it is not out of line to ask you to justify the/a solution? You do not want me to just say "well, something we have not thought of yet!" Surely! How is that any better than Greek Gods?
IF there is ET, then hiding on Earth isn't going to present much of a challenge to them.
I really don't see how you could possibly disagree with that.
I've never said that I don't like the 'Greek Gods' analogy. Actually, I think it's a very useful one! I am just as aware of people's propensity for making mistakes and the terrible nature of witness testimony (I know from my psychology studies why it is <mostly to do with how badly our memory works>).
Anyway, it's a great analogy to help weed out the people making mistakes.
If all that we ever had were vague sightings by unreliable witnesses I probably wouldn't even consider the ETH. The problem is we don't only have vague sightings by unreliable witnesses. We have sightings that last several minutes by scientists or otherwise very reliable witnesses that are often up close or lasting several minutes where the UFO displays properties of a machine.... This is why I can't write them off as 'mistaken identitiy'.
While I'm inclined to agree with you there - even those crazy conspiracy theories, however unlikely, can't be disproven. (Not saying I believe them - I have often said that I find it HIGHLY unlikely that out of hundreds of people who would have to be 'in on' such a secret, no one would ever blow the whistle)
I feel such would be an amazing sight, and probably not what one would expect to see. Firing from beneath the waves could have many advantages in war. I have little doubt much research is placed in this arena.
For you to show me a pick of a rocket launched from a sub makes me think you haven't read the kind of sightings I'm talking about.... Have you read EVERY sighting at www.waterufo.net? <--- sorry if that's the wrong link, you know which sight i mean, can't use net right now (typing this as a .txt right now for posting later on)
The real question I'm asking is what would you think if it were you that had one of the more fantastic sightings that are a dime a dozen out there. YOU saw a definate craft (perhaps even with visible occupants), you saw it do things which known man-made craft can't do etc. etc.
This is the UFO problem, not that some people are wrong or lying.
The UFO problem is that they ARE here and we need to figure out who/what they are. (Not if they exist)
[Well that's my opinion anywho ]