But these normal people can drink alcohol, do drugs, or "enhance" their imaginations in other ways. They don't necessarily have to be mentally disturbed.
A quick perusal of the case histories will show you that they are normal people; housewives with children, ordinary workers etc. They are not drug addicts.
Dirigibles are man made, and do not originate from outside of our solar system. Someone may see one and identify it as a "flying saucer", but that is my point ... they see something flying which they cannot identify, and therefore it fits the acronym UFO. But it is not an extraterrestrial UFO, it is a man made UFO (to the person who couldn't identify it).
The dirigibles of the late 19th century have many things in common with flying saucer reports. A typical scenario would be: a hapless witness is walking along a country road. S/he happens across a dirigible that has broken down and the occupants need help. A strange hypnotic experience occurs in the witness (Jenny Randles calls this the 'Oz Factor'). The witness 'helps' the pilots of the craft and the craft, now 'fixed' goes on its way.
The truth is that the dirigible/flying saucer is not broken down. This is a ruse to draw the witness in. What are the chances of a malfunctioning saucer making an emergency landing on the SIDE of the road? Why not in a field or wooded area? Roads would only take up less than 1% of the landscape but the saucers/dirigibles always seem to break down in a convenient place, just as the witness arrives. Something suspicious here. There are many parallels between dirigible and flying saucer accounts. They are the same thing.
Thousands may have been studied, but not one has been shown to be from the landing of an extraterrestrial craft of some sort. Pure speculation.
Read about landing traces and the various physical effects that have been studied. If you argue that flying saucers are of this world you must also argue that dirigibles are and they did not have flying saucer technology in the late 19th century.
You claim to know a quite a bit about these supposed visitors and how they think. How did you come across this information?
Common sense goes a long way. Why, if they are studying our natural world, would they let humans see them? There are plenty of remote areas where they could do these studies without being seen.
brunum wrote:What criteria are used to make the assessment that these are ordinary people?
Study the case histories. In one experiment a group of abductees were sent to a psychologist to be assessed. The psychologist did not know they were abductees and reported that they were normal. She was shocked when she found out they were abductees.