A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[William Strathmann]

As far as Malmstrom being problematic, I'd respond that probably every UFO report ever made has problems. Each one has to be weighed on its own merits.

Below is video testimony of several former USAF personnel, not just Salas. Go to 31 minutes 49 seconds to get to Patrick McDonough, who was stationed at Warren AFB, a nuclear missile base. While performing a work assignment one night, he and two other personnel observed a UFO above them, and at one point the UFO beamed a light down into an open, empty missile silo. He says he and comrades were so shook that they fled, and in the process he rolled the USAF truck that had only 18 miles on it. So, did this event happen? Sounds like it probably did to me. McDonough's report would not mean Salas's report is accurate, but it is consistent with it.

Robert Hastings has youtube trailers of his recently released documentary, which evidently can be found at Vimeo. Go to 2 minutes 28 seconds of this trailer for Maj Gaylan King's testimony, which is similar to Salas's.

If these people really were USAF missile men, then their testimony sounds reasonable enough. No one is going to get rich, or particularly famous, by making these testimonies. So what's to gain?

The problem with Salas's story is that in the 1990's he started to look seriously into what had happened decades earlier in 1967. He requested and obtained declassified USAF docs that indeed reported that 10 missiles had gone into a "no go" situation. This was at Echo flight on March 16th. Salas assumed that he had been on duty that evening at Echo flight since he could not imagine that a different flight had also had a similar 10 missile "no go" situation. However Capt. Eric Carlson had actually been at Echo flight on that night. Carlson had told his son, James Carlson, that 10 missiles had gone offline, but not because of UFOs.

The younger Carlson, evidently fuming that Salas's claims had besmirched the honor of his father, compiled an online book entitled:

Americans, Credulous

or​

The Arrogance of Congenital Liars & Other Character Defects
Establishing the Truth Behind the Echo Flight UFO Incident of March 16, 1967
By James Carlson

Okay . . . You can read it at Scribd, Here.

If you'd prefer more abbrieviated coverage of the blow-by-blow, you can read Richard Dolan's article, Here. It seems to be fair. In his article, Dolan says he contacted Raymond Fowler, who actually had been involved with Minuteman missiles (and he emailed Dolan a fair explanation of his involvement), and whose book, Here, was used for reference by Timothy Good for his book, Above Top Secret. It was Timothy Good's book that Salas had read that said that USAF personnel had reported UFOs at nuclear missile complexes. So this led Salas to conclude that the story of UFOs at nuclear missile bases was public domain, and that he could start reporting on it.

So Salas did not invent his story. He just couldn't remember that he'd been at a different flight about a week after the 10 missile "no go" at Echo flight, and he was extremely surprised that there evidently had actually been two incidents where 10 missiles had gone offline. Then too, a direct correlation between the UFO and 10 missiles going offline cannot be proved, but it might have been the case.

For further reading try Here, Here and Here.

So, are the reports problematic? Doubtless. But the cumulative effect of these officers' testimonies seems convincing to me that anomalous objects appeared over nuclear complexes and that they evidently interferred with missiles. YMMV.

 

[Randall]

So Salas did not invent his story. He just couldn't remember ...

So he just made stuff up and apparently corrected it as he went along ... LOL. Who knows for sure what or who to believe? Here's a couple more skeptical viewpoints:

http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite2_2.pdf

http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf

IMO Carlson's account is so filled with vitriol against ufology that he can't be relied on to give us an unbiased account, and weeding out the evidence from his diatribe is tiresome, but he does make some points worth considering. Anyway, the video crapped out on me about a third of the way through. In the end, just remember that you don't have to prove UFOs are real to me. I'm already a believer. It's just knowing exactly who and what to believe that is the problem. Like you say, some people seem reasonable enough to be believed, and I tend to agree, and even if some witnesses get some of the details wrong, it doesn't mean nothing happened and everyone is so badly confused that the whole phenomenon can be written off as nonsense.

I also enjoy comparing the pros and cons, so thanks for posting up the vids

 

[boomerang]

I see Gene's salient observation as further indication that there is much more to this phenomenon than machines in the sky, constantly playing hide and seek using the advantage of superior technology. The shape of this phenomenon, whatever it may be, is multi faceted. Not all facets may even exist in what we perceive as consensual reality. It undeniably interacts with our model of physical reality, sometimes leaving the classic "trace evidence" which (like credible eyewitness testimony) is undeniable but seemingly never sufficient to establish a UFO ontology. The UFO simply does not, and never has, yielded to known means of analysis. And yet it remains real, stubbornly refusing to be placed into standard categories of either the personally subjective or demonstrably objective. It is both and more. There is indeed is something "going on" here that, if it can be understood by the human mind at all, perhaps remains impenetrable due to questions we do not know how to ask, or hypotheses that are inherently non-testable. So we are left with societal and individual minds haunted by what appears as clever stagecraft with serious implications and very often, a permanent and lasting effect on peoples' lives. It is at once subjective and objective, profound and nonsensical, personally transformative and physically real. It is a kind of profound nonsense that (exo-political views notwithstanding) leaves us as confounded now as at the beginning of the modern UFO era.

 

[Trajanus]

I don't think the phenomenon is unfathomable. All aspects of it intensified more or less simultaneously after WWII which points to a single source not a host of disparate sources. IMO the phenomenon is ET but deliberately seeks to confuse us. That's probably to enable it to pursue some nefarious agenda with minimal resistance. As long as it seems there's no clear solution to the enigma and we can't even agree on what we're dealing with, there can be no policy on how to deal with it, ergo no real action.

 

[boomerang]

The so-called northern tier incursions at ICBM bases are simply too weird and well documented to ignore. They are among the best multiple witness cases on (public) record.

 

[Randall]

I see Gene's salient observation as further indication that there is much more to this phenomenon than machines in the sky, constantly playing hide and seek using the advantage of superior technology. The shape of this phenomenon, whatever it may be, is multi faceted. Not all facets may even exist in what we perceive as consensual reality. It undeniably interacts with our model of physical reality, sometimes leaving the classic "trace evidence" which (like credible eyewitness testimony) is undeniable but seemingly never sufficient to establish a UFO ontology. The UFO simply does not, and never has, yielded to known means of analysis. And yet it remains real, stubbornly refusing to be placed into standard categories of either the personally subjective or demonstrably objective. It is both and more. There is indeed is something "going on" here that, if it can be understood by the human mind at all, perhaps remains impenetrable due to questions we do not know how to ask, or hypotheses that are inherently non-testable. So we are left with societal and individual minds haunted by what appears as clever stagecraft with serious implications and very often, a permanent and lasting effect on peoples' lives. It is at once subjective and objective, profound and nonsensical, personally transformative and physically real. It is a kind of profound nonsense that (exo-political views notwithstanding) leaves us as confounded now as at the beginning of the modern UFO era.

A very well presented viewpoint, but allow me to make a suggestion that will leave those who try it a lot less confounded:

It's true that there's more to the UFO phenomenon than machines in the sky. But that is normal. Every field of interest is composed of a small set of core subject matter and a larger set of related subject matter that can be very complex. Ufology is no different. The core subject matter in ufology is UFOS ( alien craft ). The rest is peripheral and can be broken down into sub-categories. When we do this, the field becomes much more clear. Basically it boils down to this: There are UFOs ( alien craft ), and then there's what everyone thinks about them. That's not a hard concept to grasp, but because everybody is so caught up in what everybody thinks, the amazing reality of the situation is getting lost in all the rhetoric.

 

[boomerang]

A very well presented viewpoint, but allow me to make a suggestion that will leave those who try it a lot less confounded:

It's true that there's more to the UFO phenomenon than machines in the sky. But that is normal. Every field of interest is composed of a small set of core subject matter and a larger set of related subject matter that can be very complex. Ufology is no different. The core subject matter in ufology is UFOS ( alien craft ). The rest is peripheral and can be broken down into sub-categories. When we do this, the field becomes much more clear. Basically it boils down to this: There are UFOs ( alien craft ), and then there's what everyone thinks about them. That's not a hard concept to grasp, but because everybody is so caught up in what everybody thinks, the amazing reality of the situation is getting lost in all the rhetoric.

My post is not a call to throw in the towel and become a kind of 21st century Cargo Cult. Howling at the moon would never have taken us there.

It's just that, if anyone is the least bit less confounded by this phenomenon than was the case 60 years ago, and can say anything technological about this mystery with even a moderate degree of confidence, they must be a subset of humanity apart from the mainstream to a degree unprecedented in history. The exo-political approach leads us down paths almost as strange as the phenomenon itself. What we seek here is a progressive science. And in this "we" have made no scientific progress whatsoever.

If anyone has or knows of a means of investigation likely to bear fruit where half a century of random tree shaking has failed, please come forward and share.

 

[Randall]

My post is not a call to throw in the towel and become a kind of 21st century Cargo Cult. Howling at the moon would never have taken us there.

It's just that, if anyone is the least bit less confounded by this phenomenon than was the case 60 years ago, and can say anything technological about this mystery with even a moderate degree of confidence, they must be a subset of humanity apart from the mainstream to a degree unprecedented in history. The exo-political approach leads us down paths almost as strange as the phenomenon itself. What we seek here is a progressive science. And in this "we" have made no scientific progress whatsoever.

If anyone has or knows of a means of investigation likely to bear fruit where half a century of random tree shaking has failed, please come forward and share.

I guess that might depend on what you mean by confounded. I don't feel confused or confounded by the idea of alien visitation, nor do I have any doubt that it's happened.

 

[Trajanus]

I guess that might depend on what you mean by confounded. I don't feel confused or confounded by the idea of alien visitation, nor do I have any doubt that it's happened.

It's not the idea of alien visitation that confuses us--at least those in the field--but "high strangeness." That's what caused Hynek--a bunch of people in fact--to question the ETH, leaving no clear solution (almost certainly what the phenomenon intended....).

 

[Jeff Davis]

It's not the idea of alien visitation that confuses us--at least those in the field--but "high strangeness." That's what caused Hynek--a bunch of people in fact--to question the ETH, leaving no clear solution (almost certainly what the phenomenon intended....).

Hynek was a truly brilliant man. Being one who possessed a truly curious scientific mind, he knew better than to discount the most important aspect of this phenomenon. High strangeness is the single most prevalent common denominator associated with this phenomenon, apart from what is solely a visual representation from afar.

I am also under the opinion that the vast majority of those that have potentially studied this phenomenon, apart from any strong influences, or preconceived definitions, strongly caution against the quick out of hand attribution of this unfolding to that which is represented by the ETH.

 

[technomage]

I simply think we have insufficient hard data to make any meaningful assessment of the nature of this phenomena; and because of its elusive nature , hard data is very hard to get. Unfortunately, until we get enough hard data (as in Chris's hard data monitoring project), we can just continue to speculate until the cows come home.

 

[Jeff Davis]

We live in a society of mass surveillance, from cameras installed in ATMs, in stores and in parking lots to rampant selfies and other efforts at capturing our activities.

You can easily install one or more web cams in your home to guard against home invaders.

As UFO researcher Kevin D. Randle states in a new post on his "Different Perspective" blog, "Big Brother is now watching us all."

But where are the images of UFOs?

We do have lots of UFO photos and videos — and almost all appear to be fake! Why aren't UFOs showing up — well somewhere?

A Different Perspective: Big Brother and UFOs

But remember that surveillance cameras are pointed straight ahead or downward. They do not show the skies, nor are they present on long stretches of highways, country roads or the woods that surround them. In other words, they are not likely to capture much or any UFO activity even when it's happening.

Smartphone owners look down at their gadgets, rather than point them to the skies. Even then, their little cameras, even when capable of high resolution photos and 4K videos, aren't apt to deliver good results at night when pointed at distant objects in the sky.

I think UFOs are in fact showing up in photos and videos aplenty. Montana man claims he has proof that UFOs are real The problem seems to be one of preconditioning. Common place software technology has reached a stage wherein we are so bombarded with pseudo UFO evidence that we are all prejudiced with an unhealthy amount of disdain for all photos and videos before we even see them. There's definitely some objectivity lost to a tainted sense of pessimism prejudice.

 

[Randall]

It's not the idea of alien visitation that confuses us--at least those in the field--but "high strangeness." That's what caused Hynek--a bunch of people in fact--to question the ETH, leaving no clear solution (almost certainly what the phenomenon intended....).

Demystifying High Strangeness

Beginning with one of Hynek's examples:

"A report of a weird craft that descended to within 100 feet of a car on a lonely road ,
caused a car's engine to die, it's radio to stop, its lights to die, left marks on the nearby
ground, and appeared to be under intelligent control, receives a high strangeness
rating because it receives a number of separate very strange items each of which
outrages common sense." Source: The UFO Experience, p. 28​

In the above example we have what is by today's standards considered a rather mundane encounter. Yet back in Early Modern Era of Ufology it is seen as highly strange. More specifically: Today, the idea of an alien craft isn't so far fetched to most people, and neither is the idea that such a craft might leave marks on the ground. It's also entirely logical to assume that any species in command of such technology would be intelligent, and therefore it's not surprising that they would be in command of technology that can have an effect on our electrical devices. So the whole idea of strangeness isn't so much about defying common sense as it is about disrupting common experience.

Based on this example from ufology history, it's also fairly obvious that a significant amount of progress has been made regarding the effect that UFO reports have on the average person. In actual fact we're not nearly as confounded by them as we were in the past because they've been infused into modern culture and many people simply accept alien visitation as a reality. In this context, that is a lot of progress on a cultural level. On a scientific level it's another matter, but virtually any scientist free from undue skeptical influence will readily admit that there's nothing unscientific about the possibility of interstellar travel.

So IMO the whole aura of mystery appears to be one that is propagated by those who like to think of it in those terms, possibly to help sell a book, boost their public image, or muddy the waters during skeptical debate. After all, debate keeps the mystery alive, and who doesn't like a good out-of-this-world mystery? However those who apply a little critical thinking to the subject matter are going to have a more accurate and less emotional viewpoint. This certainly doesn't mean we have all the answers we'd like, but it still removes 99.7% of the strangeness from the equation, and by doing that we can leave our awe behind and start asking the right questions:

1. What kinds of alien ability, technological or otherwise are being reported?
2. Which of those abilities is more reasonable to believe is possible that others?
3. Looking at how their abilities are applied:
   • What does that suggest about the limit of their abilities?
   • What does that suggest about their purpose?
4. or "What does God need with a starship?"

Any student of ufology can begin working out the answers for themselves, so I'm not going to go into it all here on a forum post. There are hundreds of books out there. I'll leave off with a comment on another of Hynek's quotes on strangeness:

" A critic of the UFO scene once remarked ... 'unexplained sightings do not constitute
evidence of flying saucers any more than they constitute evidence in favor of flying pink
elephants.' What he failed to realize is that the strangeness spectrum of UFO reports is
so narrow that not only have flying pink elephants never been reported, but a definite
pattern of strange 'craft' has." Source: The UFO Experience, p. 26
​

Again we see Hynek use the word "craft" and by now we're all rather familiar with what that term means. The words "strange" and "unexplained" are in the context of a UFO sighting, virtually always synonymous with the word "alien", which implies but doesn't necessitate ET, so all we have to do to keep from getting confounded by the complexity of the phenomena, is to put alien craft at the center of our studies, take the rest in bite-sized chunks, and apply some critical thinking. It all then begins to fall into place in a rather orderly fashion.

 

[Celeste]

I think if you have multiple people taking pictures or videos from multiple angles with multiple simultaneous visual confirmations, the probability of the authenticity of the audio-visual evidence will be much higher. You basically would then need to prove that it was some elaborate hoax and the more people that have seen it, photographed it and videotaped it, the greater the onus is on the debunkers to disprove this evidence.

I would agree with that, but it didn't seem to help much in the case of the Phoenix lights. A whole town full of people and lots of pictures, but it still goes unanswered. As long as there is plausible deniability that will be the default.

 

[Trajanus]

IMO a saucer which causes a vehicle to lose electrical power while hovering nearby is not high "strangeness"--in the sense of constituting behavior which is inexplicable or unlike how space travelers "should" behave. ETs may wish to briefly immobilize a vehicle to study it or its driver.
Real examples of "high strangeness" are cases in which entities make weird statements, like "cancer comes from a toothache" or engage in odd behavior. In one case, a few humanoids were seen pulling a cable attached to a chair floating several feet above the ground with another humanoid in it.

​

 

[technomage]

I would agree with that, but it didn't seem to help much in the case of the Phoenix lights. A whole town full of people and lots of pictures, but it still goes unanswered. As long as there is plausible deniability that will be the default.

I haven't seen any pictures that showed anything but lights. If there were multiple pictures of solid craft, like what people claimed they saw, that would be different.

 

[Celeste]

I haven't seen any pictures that showed anything but lights. If there were multiple pictures of solid craft, like what people claimed they saw, that would be different.

True. Hard to photograph a dark craft at night. It isn't proof of anything except that a ton of people saw something strange.

 

[boomerang]

In search of a kind of unified field theory of the UFO, nothing consonant with known physical law can be ruled in or out. We may postulate the appearance of advanced science as apparent ET magic based on extrapolation of humanity's recent technological progress. But that is as speculative as notions of psychic projection or alternate dimensions. Nor are these necessarily incompatible with more advanced models of reality.

I guess what I am getting at is that one cannot study by scientific means an apparently intelligent phenomenon that warps and pilfers the tools we use to study it. The phenomenon toys with time and space as it toys with us. The only tangible evidence we have and have ever had (again--assuming we do not go down the exo-political or breakaway civilization highway) are the witnesses themselves and whatever changes have taken place in their minds and lives in dealing with this enigma. Perhaps the hair-pulling, tricksterish aspect of the ET UFO and associated high strangeness is the high tech alien entertainment equivalent of Disneyland or Six Flags after all. Perhaps it is camouflage. But a larger view of the phenomenon suggests that one leg of our stool is missing. The phenomenon is individualized and personal in a way that fits no sensible ET model. There are a few shreds of "hard" evidence from cameras or radar floating out there in the mist. But they sit, like the UFO itself, stubbornly at the verge of resolution into something meaningful. Despite out best and most sincere efforts, ufology remains a social rather than a hard science.

A pitfall (I think), and one made especially in the early phase of the modern UFO era, is to throw out peripheral and sometimes bizarre aspects of many otherwise well documented events based on their seeming incompatibility with the only model the human mind can comfortably wrap itself around: ETs in physical spacecraft. Even some of the best of the early researchers yielded to this temptation to "filter" the most nonsensical aspects of UFO encounters for fear of total ridicule. We are awed by Jim Penniston's rendition of the multi-witness case at Bentwaters until, many years later, he espouses aspects of his experience that seem totally irrational--i.e. the binary code--without stopping to ask if his belated irrationality is an aspect of the encounter it and of itself.

So we are left with what amounts to a social or psychological science. As much as we would love to move this into the realm of the hard and quantifiable sciences, at present we simply cannot. The most talented and best dedicated enthusiasts in the field are, in effect, well meaning archivists inspired to worthwhile speculation and writing a thought provoking history that sparks the imagination. For all we know, this could be the unified theory we seek.

Apologies for the rant. I had intended a much shorter and to-the-point response. Many of these concepts and speculations just do not sound bite worth a darn.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Demystifying High Strangeness

Beginning with one of Hynek's examples:

"A report of a weird craft that descended to within 100 feet of a car on a lonely road ,
caused a car's engine to die, it's radio to stop, its lights to die, left marks on the nearby
ground, and appeared to be under intelligent control, receives a high strangeness
rating because it receives a number of separate very strange items each of which
outrages common sense." Source: The UFO Experience, p. 28​

In the above example we have what is by today's standards considered a rather mundane encounter. Yet back in Early Modern Era of Ufology it is seen as highly strange. More specifically: Today, the idea of an alien craft isn't so far fetched to most people, and neither is the idea that such a craft might leave marks on the ground. It's also entirely logical to assume that any species in command of such technology would be intelligent, and therefore it's not surprising that they would be in command of technology that can have an effect on our electrical devices. So the whole idea of strangeness isn't so much about defying common sense as it is about disrupting common experience.

Based on this example from ufology history, it's also fairly obvious that a significant amount of progress has been made regarding the effect that UFO reports have on the average person. In actual fact we're not nearly as confounded by them as we were in the past because they've been infused into modern culture and many people simply accept alien visitation as a reality. In this context, that is a lot of progress on a cultural level. On a scientific level it's another matter, but virtually any scientist free from undue skeptical influence will readily admit that there's nothing unscientific about the possibility of interstellar travel.

So IMO the whole aura of mystery appears to be one that is propagated by those who like to think of it in those terms, possibly to help sell a book, boost their public image, or muddy the waters during skeptical debate. After all, debate keeps the mystery alive, and who doesn't like a good out-of-this-world mystery? However those who apply a little critical thinking to the subject matter are going to have a more accurate and less emotional viewpoint. This certainly doesn't mean we have all the answers we'd like, but it still removes 99.7% of the strangeness from the equation, and by doing that we can leave our awe behind and start asking the right questions:

1. What kinds of alien ability, technological or otherwise are being reported?
2. Which of those abilities is more reasonable to believe is possible that others?
3. Looking at how their abilities are applied:
   • What does that suggest about the limit of their abilities?
   • What does that suggest about their purpose?
4. or "What does God need with a starship?"

Any student of ufology can begin working out the answers for themselves, so I'm not going to go into it all here on a forum post. There are hundreds of books out there. I'll leave off with a comment on another of Hynek's quotes on strangeness:

" A critic of the UFO scene once remarked ... 'unexplained sightings do not constitute
evidence of flying saucers any more than they constitute evidence in favor of flying pink
elephants.' What he failed to realize is that the strangeness spectrum of UFO reports is
so narrow that not only have flying pink elephants never been reported, but a definite
pattern of strange 'craft' has." Source: The UFO Experience, p. 26
​

Again we see Hynek use the word "craft" and by now we're all rather familiar with what that term means. The words "strange" and "unexplained" are in the context of a UFO sighting, virtually always synonymous with the word "alien", which implies but doesn't necessitate ET, so all we have to do to keep from getting confounded by the complexity of the phenomena, is to put alien craft at the center of our studies, take the rest in bite-sized chunks, and apply some critical thinking. It all then begins to fall into place in a rather orderly fashion.

Ufology,
There is a very important, even critical, distinction to make here, and ultimately it *is*the indispensability point of the "high strangeness" consideration that the phenomenon waves in the face of all those that do not choose to dismiss it out of hand. When Hynek further clarified high strangeness" in the same book The UFO Experience, he defined it as being “a measure of the number of information bits the report contains, each of which is difficult to explain in common-sense terms.”

Indeed one could paint the encounter event in your post as representing a few technically inexplicable bits at the time in some sense, even though Martin Cannon's The Controllers - A New Hypothesis of Alien Abductions documents possibly responsible technologies prior to this report's date of investigation. One thing is for certain, that's definitely not the case now as we have many technologies in play that can stop a vehicle remotely. What we simply cannot explain however is the consciousness field entrainment effect, or zone of influence as Jenny Randles called it, that specifically envelopes and engages the witness/es. I think the way Jenny explains it here makes a great deal more sense in terms of appealing to your sense of reason. The Oz Factor by Jenny Randles - Documents This is why I feel real consciousness research will open doors yet unimagined with respect to actual aspects of reality we simply know nothing of presently.

You and I have always had some small, but real degree of difficulty nonetheless, in terms of what we believe are the origins of this phenomenon, however I do know that we respect one another as we both speculatively engage the same phenomenon. I do not consider you as being incorrect, because I know better than to consider myself as being any real type of correct. All I know is that by simple virtue of reported experience, not much in my mind aligns itself with respect to this phenomenon as being representative of superior visitors from outer space. At least not apart from what has either been intentionally, or unintentionally, culled from our memories and imaginations.

I think one thing that we both definitely agree on however, is that we are dealing with...no scratch that...we are considering, a phenomenon that makes the human condition ultimately aware that there is far more afoot within what we term reality, than just this sentient and self aware animal that is the human being engaged in another "what you see, is what you get" day in the life.

 

[William Strathmann]

Ufology,
There is a very important, even critical, distinction to make here, and ultimately it *is*the indispensability point of the "high strangeness" consideration that the phenomenon waves in the face of all those that do not choose to dismiss it out of hand.

Like you, JD, I also think it is quite difficult to untangle the origin of the strange things that people are reporting. I hope I don't come across as "piling on" Ufology, because I'm not trying to do so, so please forgive me if it seems so. I've looked around your ufo website and I came across this "highly-strange" account about an MIB encounter, Here "Near Collision With an MIB Cadillac." As it is reported, I would accept it as a "real" experience of some sort. The driver who made the report says a 1959 Cadillac with three occupants crossed a highway where there was no road, at such a close distance that he had to brake to keep from colliding with the Caddy. I believe the report is from you Ufology. But it doesn't matter who had this experience. It is presented at your site as a well defined incident, with several highly "normal" aspects that appear in a "highly-strange" context. A 1959 Cadillac is normal. But coming out of a dense forest and making no tire marks on the shoulder, and then descending down the other side and disappearing, is HIGHLY unusual. The three occupants were reported as MIBs and were wearing sunglasses at night, again, mixing both normal and the highly unusual.

If this experience has any relation to UFOs, and presumably it does since it appears at your site, how can anyone ever be sure that the disc shaped craft that they view is not merely a different "expression" of the power that produced the 1959 Cadillac in this experience? So, again, IMHO this field is not susceptible to unequivocal statements about its source. At the present time, IMHO, ideas about the source must be teased out by inference.