With all of the information out there concerning the UFO/abduction phenomenon, complete understanding of its mechanism is a next to impossible task. Type “UFO” into Google and you will find almost four million sites on the subject. Most of these sites are nonsensical or highly speculative in nature. There are a lot of them, however, that offer well known or little known cases by respected scientists, UFOlogists, PhDs or honest, credible citizens who have witnessed unknown craft and/or their occupants. How does one discriminate between them?

Cynics and debunkers attack the data gathered by the open-minded investigator by use of antiquated protocols. To them, everything can be explained by fitting the evidence neatly into established “pigeonholes.” If it doesn’t fit, they make it fit. Certain elements of the evidence are altered or completely ignored until it does. If the square peg does not fit into the round hole, the corners are broken off and discarded until it does. When the evidence becomes too compelling, it is relegated to the category of “hoax” or “mental disorder.” All too often, if there is no established pigeonhole for the unorthodox evidence, it is dismissed out of hand from the outset.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly), this policy has been the standard of mainstream science since time immemorial. It is the reason that the wheels of science turn so slowly. As a rule, it takes at least a full generation for a newly discovered law of physics to be accepted as fact. The world must wait for the proponents of old world paradigms to die off before new truths can be acknowledged.

The lack of information offered by our government provokes UFOlogists to pick up the slack by assimilating what can be derived from leaked and declassified documents. The disinformation put out by those who would keep the secret covered up, puts the serious investigator in the time consuming position of separating the wheat from the chaff. This process is not always successful, which leaves them open to ridicule by their critics and even their peers within the UFO community. As a result, much high quality evidence is often rejected for safety’s sake. It is better to err on the side of caution than to declare a case as genuine only to have it revealed as a hoax later.

Although an estimated seventy-five percent of mainstream scientists accept the fact that there is an alien presence in our world, to publicly support such a hypothesis is tantamount to professional suicide. Even well respected members of the UFO community play politics within their ranks when it comes to authenticating and divulging data on the subject.