Grant Carmeron has proposed a view (hypothesis) that seems pretty all encompassing. I tend to agree with his views which are not definitive yet for those of you who want nitty gritty details, but in broad brush terms he ought to be able to take on all "comers" who want to "bring it."
grant cameron unify youtube - Saferbrowser Yahoo Video Search Results
All on ETH panel debate acquitted themselves well. Certain of you seemed especially well informed. Great to hear from our Aussi mates. There probably is or was an underground UFO base in the park at the end of his street. Just because the authorities didn't find any obvious evidence doesn't mean there wasn't a potential for something to be uncovered. Some research into the geology underlying the park in that general area and some localized seismological readings could help. It would be important to canvass the neighbors and see what odd things they might have experienced while they've been living in that area. If it is already known that there are caves under that ground, the likelyhood becomes even stronger. The presence of water in some quantitiy can sometimes be an indicator, as well. Don't assume the base will be right next to the "alleged entry." Sometimes the actual base could be quite some distance away....especially, if it was craft seen entering the rock face rather than beings.
An instrumented approach to ET research was propose very early on by meteorologist James E. MacDonald and the military jumped on it, while at the same time not encouraging such research by ordinary citizens. Still there were UFO research groups, and citizens with an inventive bent that did develop equipment or bought off the shelf equipment in an effort to capture better data on UFO's transiting their chosen areas of investigation. Chris has been huge supporter of Ray Stanford and rightly so. He was one of the few "civilians" that had sufficient financial backing to put together a laboratory of equipment which he then put in a van. He has been sitting on some excellent data as this program revealed, but refused to publish it early on because he felt there would be no market for a "technical book" on the subject. I disagreed with him then, but he may have been right in the sense that he ought to have a much more savvy and appreciative audience now.
Here's the tricky part. These beings or the intelligence behind their appearance thinks ahead in very long time spans. They IT seems to have psychic and psychological profiles of the individuals the "contact" and invest extensive time and energy in either immediately or over a number of years. They-IT also seem to be very conversant in energy field manipulations of both energies we have come to know about and many more that we don't. In some sense the "show" that is put on is a lot like a "dream show" in the sense that there is an obvious scenario on the surface, but many more subtler ones beneath that surface. Instruments can be fooled or spoofed. The impression the individual/witnesses come(s) away with may be exactly the one "intended" but not a "real" one in terms of the deeper aspects of the phenomena and we are most naive to believe that somehow that doesn't extend to our instruments whether they are image takers or scale measurers.
So called human science can be subverted or even redirected as in the cases of witnesses who retain scientific data that they have no basis for understanding, but can recall enough detail or have captured enough detail that they can pass the ideas on to those who have the knowledge.
The idea of passive data capture could be useful up to a certain point, (there is a range of UFO cases where we seem to have learned much by "accident.") but any device created by our technology can be spoofed by theirs. The intelligence that can read human thought at a distance can certainly uncover any "traps" that may be set out against it and disable them or spoof them as it may choose or even ignore them.
One of the points no one has made lately is that these "physical craft" are capable of changing size, significantly. Consider the possibility that in some instances where they are reported to have disappeared they may have just shrunk to a size below what is visible at a given distance and doused their lights.
No one on the panel mentioned the ufo cases where the witness has been surrounded by lots of little sparkling lights, like fairy lights or larger ones we term bols, but those observations are also part of the literature and the mystery.
What is amusing to me and could be attributed to either the trickster side of the phenomena or an unfamiliarity with the nuances of our aircraft or other vehicular designs are cases like the one LMH reported where a black helicopter flew by, but the design of its rotor blade was such that it would have been incapable of flight.
In addition to instantly modifiable craft there are also reports of drone or small robotic type vehicles. I know of at least two cases that MUFON doesn't have in its files, so I would venture to say that such sightings are even more under reported than those of the more recognizable/familiar types of "unknowns."
Have fun and carry on gentlemen the subject is one that will engage us for some time to come.