Hallucinations: how many humans have them? (And are UFOs a part?)

Copyright 2023, InterAmerica, Inc.

12.7% is a number listed by several sources via a Google search, and that seems about right from my readings on the topic.
 
So, how do we explain the plethora of seeming hallucinatic episodes delineated by Albert Rosales, José Caravaca, and Preston Dennett (among others), indicating a percentage higher that 12.7%?
 
Could the UFO encounters and alleged alien abductions be something other than hallucinatory, actual events as reported?
 
I opt for the suggestion that episodes of UFO/humanoid contact are a kind of folie syndrome, such as folie hystérique or folie instantanée or other esoteric psychiatric anomaly.
 
But there are too many diverse times, locations, and details that don’t gibe with such psychological designations.
 
So, where do we take such accounts?
 
José’s Distortion Theory offers a solution of sorts but it, too, is circumscribed by the great number of such episodic encounters, with their general diversities.
 
As our pal Dominick and others think that descriptions and gathered “data” about things seen or encountered (even photo- graphed: Heflin or arguably Meier) insinuate an extraterrestrial option to explain them, they make a leap in logic to come to that kind of conclusion.
 
And to do the same with the Rosales vast library of UFO encounters would be just as flawed.
 
There has to be, must be, some kind of explanation not pondered or rational that explains such phenomenal happenings – my psy- chiatric preference doesn’t do it, Caravaca’s theory comes close but lacks a prime causal factor – his “external agent” devoid of an acceptable exegesis.
 
The surmised ET explanation is weak. The interdimensional sug- gestion is loaded with hypothetical wariness. And the conspiracy – that it’s a government ruse of some kind – is fraught with so many obstacles it stinks.
 
The UFO encounter sub-set of the overall phenomenon is, I admit, a side-bar, but a juicy one, which only the intrepid can or should cope with.
 
UFO “hobbyists” have a plateful to contend with, so we won’t get any real input from them; their UAP and disclosure desire trumps the phenomenon’s overall profound meaning that a select few of us seek.
 
RR

Billy Cox: UFOs and nukes (again)

https://lifeinjonestown.substack.com/p/will-gillibrand-ask-about-nukes

The News media stupidities continue -- apace!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKRV7GPbjJg

Are We Alone? Researching UFOs and UAPs with Francis Ridge | The El-Chaar Chronicles

Google's UFO Alerts for 4/15 had a few links about the "donut" shaped UFO a dog-walker captured on his phone....above.

The guy tried to "telescopic" it by zooming the image, but he only got the usual enlarged blob that ensues when one does that.

How many blobs of "orb-like" images does the public have to endure because of media's slavish, dopey attempts to be current about the UFO phenomenon?

Then, the blue headline above shows the ongoing grammatical error of pluralizing Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, where pheno- menon is already pluralized.

This was from WDIY-TV......a station for rubes apparently.

I'm hoping that my tepid readers here are noting, publicly, how ignorant news media has become, along with the public that adheres to that media's prognostications.

UFO people using UAPs as a designation for the phenomenon is bad enough, but journalism doing so is egregiously irritating...

RR