One argument against the ET observation/interaction idea proposed by UFOlogy doesn't really explain apparitions in my opinion. Apparitions tend to take on distinctly human appearance, sometimes familiar, sometimes not. Are we thinking ET is mimicking appearance of known humans? Sure, the shadow people or poltergeist phenomona may hint at effects of ET interaction, but not apparitions, I think.
You guys talked about it for two minutes. I wanted something with meat. I understood his idea to be broadsweeping, that is to say that it included full body apparitions and things of that sort. Ufies wasn't really given the chance to follow up on it after you guys went around. I thought maybe he had some specific things that led him to that idea.
As Burnt State said, this is the kind of stuff that is cool to me. Speculation is the most interesting part of this field to me, because it generates narratives. Those narratives are most interesting when they hinge on something "tangible;" by that, I just mean they hinge on pre-existing lore. I'm open to the generation of new lore, as happens with new cases, sometimes. However, I like when things are put together in ways that make sense within the working narrative.
Now, obviously I'm talking from a lore perspective. I realize some of you guys have a more grounded perception of this stuff, so maybe that concept isn't as fun to you. However, it's very similar to how Gene and his friend came up with the idea for transdimensional travelers, etc. I think
arguing about any of that is literally insane. It's the creation of these ideas that are intellectually, creatively and, perhaps, spiritually stimulating.
That's all I'm trying to get to. I'm more interested in the
What if's than the
What is when it comes to the paranormal. I honestly don't understand trying to proclaim
What is in the first place. As I said, though, my goal is fun and creative stimulation, not cracking the paranormal codes of the universe.