Hello, Doctor Giles... I should have led with that previously. :) I, too, love intelligent conversations, and dialoguing with people. It may be that we're very much alike to a greater degree, except it does seem like we may be at odds on what constitutes evidence.

Take David Fravor for example. He and wingman Dietrich we routed to intercept a radar contact. Radar contact descended from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than second, stopped on a dime. They intercepted the object, and put two aircraft radar on it, and four sets of human eyes. Fravor descends, leaving get a closer look, instructing Dietrich to maintain altitude. Object engages Fravor. It then disappears, and a second later Nimitz carrier group identifies it as being 60 nautical miles away from where it was. Mind you, that object arrives dead center of Fravor's cap point. This doesn't count as evidence?

What about objects going from air to water and not slowing down or showing any signs of impact on water, like no plumes, or objects accelerating and no sonic booms? Do you suppose the 250,000 UFO events interacting with commercial and military aviation that Vallée and Bigelow were asked to study for the military doesn't count as evidence?

These people are reasonable people, too, you know? Clearly they have had access to data that most people don't. And so, couldn't we reasonably assume that there is growing number of people being read in on data that leads to one conclusion, and most people aren't privy?

I certainly think having a modicum of skepticism is healthy. At the same time, to acknowledge UFOs are real and not realize we are approaching a paradigm shift... It leads me to wonder if you're really acknowledging how strange the anomalous events are.

Are you familiar with anomalous rating scale that Vallée created to try and classify the wide range of experiences associated with phenomena?