Ray A wrote:To be frank, I don't think too many on this board take me seriously in this regard anyway. I've already been referred to as some kind of "mushroom eater" and "drunk", and the mockery has come in spades.
I'm sorry to hear that.
regarding the Nazi ww2 space engineering. In the interview Col.Dr. Alexander claimed it false based on the fact that Germany didn't win. I think that's a strange response by a military personnel like himself. If Dr. Alexander believes in aliens, which he does, he surely can't put the same type of assessments upon them as he would in regular human interactions and situations given the fact that nothing is known about an alien interaction type of agenda. One would as easily have to suspect that there may be other underlying causes and criteria that humanity wouldn't know about.
I'm not sure how Dr. Alexander would view the Rendlesham case which was testified by many military personnel. The spacecraft left the Rendelsham base; which based on Alexanders earlier reasoning and view of Nazis losing the war the purpose doesn't seem to fit any alien criteria in Rendelsham to help him ascertain explanations in either situation.
Ray A wrote:I’ve read past comments by Dr. Southerton where he objects to being labeled a “plant geneticist” when discussing DNA issues because he feels that the phrase is used as a way to dismiss his contribution to the topic. (As in ‘plant geneticists don’t have the credentials to discuss ancient human DNA.’) And, yet, here we have Dr. Southerton utilizing the same tactic which he deplores by labeling Mr. Aston a “UFO expert” as a way to discredit anything he may have to contribute on the matter of Book of Mormon archaeology.
In all fairness there is a difference between a genetic scientist working in a specific genetic field and a person who isn't associated with the field of genetics what-so-ever. I believe the same comparison applies to archaelogy or other fields as well. That's not to say that contributions can't be made by people who aren't trained in a specific field, for example hobby astronomists have made remarkable discoveries; but in every case they have to be cleared by someone certified and trained in the particular field.
Ray A wrote:I've also said that UFO studies is a complex and complicated field, even more so than Mormonism, in my opinion,
I don't believe Mormonism is complex. After having researched Smith and the early church, and taken into account current leadership, it appears very, very simple to my way of thinking. But that's what makes us different right?
Ray A wrote:You'll also need to look at Timothy Good's Above Top Secret: The Worldwide U.F.O. Cover-Up and compare the two.
I will read it.
I had listened to the discolosure project years ago and admittedly was multi-tasking while doing so and I don't remember all the details anymore.
I can appreciate your concern over the disagreement between Sgt. Karl Wolf's statement about a Moon Base and Col.Dr. Alexanders denial of a moon base. (at least Sgt. Karl or Col Alexander didn't say there were Quakers - sorry I just couldn't resist)
It's a good example that makes this topic problematic. It is probably similar to religion - as many opinions and ideas as there are people. I doubt the political powers will spend much energy confirming aliens. They seem to have much bigger problems to deal with at this time. The whole thing remains speculative and for some of us rather a waste of time for that reason.
I can understand though that your personal experience causes you to be more passionate about the topic than myself and possibly spending more time on speculation than many who have not had your experience.