[Tanny (OP)]

As I have already stated I don't really need to watch a video to tell me what I already know, although I am still willing to discuss this with you without the need to watch said videos.

I don't need to read your posts to tell me what I already know.

[atbsphotography]

The UFOs in the story were (according to claims) touched, not identified. 

This says otherwise, your account of this from watching the videos is quite honestly wrong, if someone touches something it is considered identified, just as @Thebox said. Whether this identification is by sight or by touch, it is still identified regardless. Therefore it wouldn't be considered a UFO anymore, to give it another name it would be an IFO ( Identified Flying Object) Or maybe a SIFO ( Self Identified Flying Object). In any circumstance, it is identified and would no longer be a UFO. So that is why I wouldn't watch the videos, moreover, I prefer videos with actual fact and not just some stories.

[Tanny (OP)]

I apologize, this is all my fault.  When I started the thread I didn't realize that my honorable fellow members already know everything there is to know about UFOs, and so obviously, it logically follows there would be no point in them watching videos on the topic.  My bad, sorry!

[atbsphotography]

I apologize, this is all my fault.  When I started the thread I didn't realize that my honorable fellow members already know everything there is to know about UFOs, and so obviously, it logically follows there would be no point in them watching videos on the topic.  My bad, sorry!

No person on earth knows everything, the points I have stated are explanations for the events, they are true to my knowledge. Therefore someone else could offer another explanation and call it the truth. Being as there is no real true explanation anyone can explain it and it would be true to that person. There isn't any reason to apologise. It's not necessary. 

[guest39538]

I apologize, this is all my fault.  When I started the thread I didn't realize that my honorable fellow members already know everything there is to know about UFOs, and so obviously, it logically follows there would be no point in them watching videos on the topic.  My bad, sorry!

We were not being ignorant Tanny, there is just no need to watch more UFO videos when we all know what the discussion entails.
Like atb as pointed out, UFO's are different to I.F.O's

Have you noticed nobody as commented on my proving alien existence thread?   

They exist alright but in what purpose I am yet unsure, although I ''feel'' the Earth is a very good Universal prison and they may be our wardens.

[atbsphotography]

I apologize, this is all my fault.  When I started the thread I didn't realize that my honorable fellow members already know everything there is to know about UFOs, and so obviously, it logically follows there would be no point in them watching videos on the topic.  My bad, sorry!

They exist alright but in what purpose I am yet unsure, although I ''feel'' the Earth is a very good Universal prison and they may be our wardens.

I'm of the opinion they do exist but in plaintive terms, they may not be human in nature, though stranger things have happened. Thankfully I'm not of the opinion that the world is run by lizards like some people in America do!

[Tanny (OP)]

It seems some of us wish to have a semantic debate.  Ok, go for it, I'll leave that to those who find it interesting.

Meanwhile, to cement my reputation as a high ranking UFO expert :-) I will now fulfill the requirement of the job and present a crackpot theory which will generously provide the skeptics with something they can declare ridiculous.  :-)

I'm wondering if three different fields of endeavor are all describing the same thing without realizing it.   Those three arenas are:

1) Christianity
2) UFO abduction stories
3) DMT users

I'm sure beyond all doubt that my fellow members already know EVERYTHING anyone could possibly know about DMT, and thus have no need whatsoever to inspect any further information, but just in case a less expert person should wander in to the thread, here's a video introduction to the drug DMT.

In this crackpot theory, what unites Christianity, UFO abduction stories, and DMT experiences are:

1) intelligent non-human entities
2) profound experiences of love

What if each of these seemingly completely different areas of investigation  are all describing another layer of reality which has yet to be discovered by science?  The phrase "another layer of reality" probably sounds wildly speculative, and it might be, but consider that we've already proven the existence of:

1) microscopic realm
2) atomic realm
3 quantum realm

Each of these layers of reality are radically different than human scale reality, and each of them are fully real, and each was discovered only relatively recently in human history.  What's so crazy about imagining there might be other layers of reality yet to be discovered?

Perhaps human scale reality and this other level of reality have co-existed side by side all along, with each having only occasional glimpses of the other.  Perhaps what we call "aliens" are actually Earth bound creatures who inhabit this other level, and who have realized that our nuclear weapons threaten their level of reality just as they do ours.   Thus we see the phenomena described in the UFO and Nukes video (which of course you already understand in every detail).

Consider this.  Every known species on Earth in our human scale reality is expert within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there.  But at the same time, every known species is also largely blind beyond it's niche, because it has no need of that extra information.  Every species on Earth is in this situation.  Isn't it reasonable to assume that we are too?

My wife is an avid rehabber and often watches TV with a squirrel in her lap.  The squirrel can see the flashing colors on the screen, but has no ability at all to understand the level of abstraction involved.  Thus, the squirrel can see the TV physically, but has no grasp at all of what it really is.   Point being, every known species has built-in limits of perception.  Each species can see a slice of reality, but is blind to the full picture.

We are hairless apes only recently living in caves.   Why should we assume that because we can't see something, that therefore it is not there?

And why should we assume that scientists are the only credible source of information on such topics, when 1) they are completely ignoring the UFO issue, possibly the biggest story in human history, and 2) seem to have little to no grasp of the bottom line trajectory of the knowledge explosion (as described in my other thread)?

[atbsphotography]

 Why should we assume that because we can't see something, that, therefore, it is not there?

That is a really good question, best guess is we always acknowledge things are there but then deny it in our mind, maybe it is psychological in nature but who knows. The existence of aliens, on the one hand, would make absolute sense to most people but to others, they may acknowledge there existence but then deny it in there mind because of fear and or scepticism to what they think is right being met with criticism. But on the other hand, they may not exist at all, and we could openly admit that without fear of reprisal.

UFO's, for instance, don't conform to this logic because we can't deny they exist when in reality they do, there is an explanation for them being real, but whether they are alien in nature is a different story. I'm gonna guess that till we actually see a UFO land and we are able to identify it as an alien craft, then we will never know. This also includes by undoctored photo and or video.