While I cannot prove that 2012 will be the next poleshift your argument is entirely wrong. Poleshifting is a natural thing and happens after a certain time. Actually the poles are always moving and "recently" they were actually moving pretty fast (maybe you heard from the updates airports etc. had to make to adapt some changes in the magnetic field)...
Nope you're wrong, the poles are not always moving, there's simply a natural wobble effect of the earth spinning around it's axis. That's not at all what this is about though. It doesn't flip the earth axis!!! I'm sure you're mixing up magnetism reversal with poleshifting here. Those are two very different things!
An actual 'poleshift' means the earth axis gets turned upside down in a very short period of time.
If such a thing would be imminent it would be easy to proof, as a huge asteroid or planet would have to pass by quite closely for it to cause such a poleshift.
The whole 2012 date is nuts really, there's nothing moving towards the earth that will pass by in 2012. Closest planets are actually moving away from us. Only thing close enough would be the moon, but it will take many many years before it would cause a collision or have a bigger impact on earth than it already has now.
Apart from the fact that the press was able to get quite some in-depth info on certain things afterwards (and their website also features some of this) you're totally disregarding one major fact. Much of the info they want to give actually is classified. So if you'd pass stuff like that around they'd get punished and I guess the evidence would get confiscated and probably would not be useable in front of any US court. So all they can do is like crossing the border with one leg saying we have some classified info we weren't allowed to release but our conscience tells us that this would be wrong which is why we stand up now and want an investigation were we can testify...
Governments use secrecy by default, on just about all topics... there's no proof in that. In fact, many documents are being released under the act of freedom of information all the time. Some of those are interesting, but they still don't proof anything.
The fact that there are documents, only means they are somewhat interested in figuring out whether possibly hostile countries have developed more advanced (spy) aircraft and so on. I don't think the global scientific community really thinks there's a realistic chance of alien contact here on earth. This doesn't mean they won't actively investigate sightings and many of those scientists are or have been working for governments all over the world.
Talk to them and they can't give you one example of a case that actually provides proof of true alien contact. There might be cases where it's impossible to determine the cause (without a doubt), but it's still wild speculation to assume alien space craft were flying around our planet.
I guess you didn't watch the entire conference through. I actually don't know what to say towards this and some other points of yours. When someone getting to a crash site with an alien aircraft and alien bodies you just say they were just hallucinating or something? Well it's the perfect counter-argument though as any time anyone experiences something like that he "just was seeing something where in reality he certainly didn't see anything". If that really is your point of view there's no use in discussing this any longer as you've already defined what is "real" and what is not despite it being so or not...
As I pointed out, there's a lot of human psychology involved! Using hypnosis I can make anyone believe having experienced an abduction by aliens. Including the whole typical research they'd do on humans.
It's because a.) we have a general (fictional) idea of what it would be like
and
b.) because our mind is able to interpret things as though they are being different from reality.
Having said that, I don't doubt people truly believe they have seen something, I'm merely stating that this doesn't mean what they think they have seen was the actual reality.
It hasn't got much to do with hallucinating, but I am sure many were in fact hallucinating.
Look at it from a different angle though. Look at the sky, search for a cloud with an interesting shape. If you look long enough and concentrate, your mind will always try to distinguish shapes and come up with something more. We all know it's still just a cloud, but our brain is trying to look for more.
Now imagine this in an entirely different context. Say, you're on the ground, pitch black night and there's only a blue light in the sky. Our first interpretation will always be 'it's a light in the sky', but when our second evaluation doesn't lead to a probable cause determination... we will fantasize about what's causing it, until we actually figure out what it was. It's as simple as that.
It's why people see Jesus' face on rocks, even though no one really knows (or can know) what Jesus must have looked like.
It's also why recorded videos of 'flying unidentified aircraft' often are pretty easy to debunk.
Sure - making such a conclusion would be quite irrational though. If you see someone at night with like black clothing & stuff doing something at a fuse box and the next thing is that the power & lights turn of would you suggest this being about a technical malfunction or would you suggest the suspicious guy turned to power off?
That's way different. Physical contact, someone messing with something that directly influences that device.. totally different scenario.
Same for that UFO case - a strange craft visible for anyone doing something strange at the silos leading to disabled weapon controls: A general misterious techincal malfunction never uncovered or an interaction of that craft?
It's actually extremely short sighted to assume it MUST have been caused by that aircraft, that might not have been an aircraft at all in the first place.
( Also, as an example, don't underestimate the fact that's it's better for a Department of Defense (aka 'the Army') who's job it is to protect a country (or make people believe it does) to say it 'might have been an UFO', instead of admitting a hostile country has deployed a virus or even infiltrated those bases that caused this. Wouldn't you agree the whole UFO sighting might as well be the malfunction being visible on the radar screens? Perhaps cause and effect are in fact switched.)
I'm not saying that you're 100% wrong but this having nothing to do with the craft would be very very very unlikely. Especially while talking of something serious like nuclear weapons and their controls - technology used for that is very solid and I know of no other case of such a "technical disaster" - do you?
Yes, of course! Again, technology this advanced is bound to malfunction quite a few times at least! And it does! But thankfully there are also a good amount of fail-safe procedures and back-up systems running. This has one disadvantage though... those can fail as well! This is what happened and this is what's quite rare. Malfunction of equipment isn't rare though.
Look at the space program and how much has to be exactly right for it not to blow up during launch... we all know it has failed many times, why assume this is different for nuclear technology? Just because it's shrouded in secrecy, doesn't mean things always go perfectly right... that's just nuts.
Well your demand is unfair in terms of them wanting to get the proof of an actual alien aircraft etc. and that's what the whole investigation they want would be allowed. So basically you want some certain evidences but are against an investigation which might have the power to actually get those evidences? That's what I call unfair - I saw you giving no clue as to why such an investigation would be a bad thing (what would anyone have to lose anyway)..
It's impossible to proof alien life without a physical body or aircraft.. simple as that. There's nothing unfair about that.
Investigations are never bad, it's the foundation of truth finding, but I simply think they are sometimes futile in case of many of these often quite mystical and farfetched subjects like Gods. (Don't forget how many things are already been proved not to have been historical and such, there's more to it than just the abstract possibility of a God's existence. And then we haven't even touched the subject on what the definition of a God would be, no one really agrees on this trust me.)
