How Can Anyone Dismiss A Report While Stating They Are Missing Source Material?

Regarding the Elsie Oakenson UFO incident, Patrick Gross on URECAT states:

"Randles states that there was an independent sighting less than two hours after Oakensen's encounter about four miles away: four women, younger than Mrs Oakensen but who did not know of her or her story, and vice versa, were driving through the village of Preston Capes, and saw similar colored lights to those which first alerted Elsie Oakensen and then parallel beams shot from a cloud. Their car began to lose power and the object paced them, until they entered the village lit by streetlamps and the car returned to normal. The UFO lights now merged into one and vanished.

"Since no clear link between the two encounters had been established at the time, there was no follow up on the other witnesses to establish whether they, too, experienced missing time"

I have asked John Hanson of Haunted Skies/British UFO Archives whether he got to speak to those witnesses.

According to Gross:

"The part of the experience with the entities comes from the use of hypnosis, method that serious ufologists do not regard as valid."

I suppose it was better than him suggesting an helicopter (again). But this emphasising that "serious Ufologists" do not regard hypnosis as valid is a very black and white ass-head type of attitude.

Hypnosis can be used to help relieve stress and trauma from a UFO percipient" as they tend to suffer from post traumatic stress, etc.  There is a certain British "abduction expert" who takes a hypnotherapists to every first interview to get his abduction experience. There is no code of practice or even a code of ethics in Ufology just grab a story to add to your collection and move on.

There is much that can be done without hypnosis and to keep stating that people who describe a UFO encounter and missing time are having hypnosis creating entities is showing the most ignorant attitude and betraying the fact that the person making the comment just has no idea. Perhaps study all of the case details before making a pronouncement with "sources missing" and giving an incomplete picture might help?

As I have made clear before, I thought and still think that Jean Hingley  ("Mince pie martians") could be listed as altered state experience. But there were physical ground traces hat were still visible for over 7 months after the incident that she could not have made. I could ignore the ground traces and dismiss the case but that is lying and not giving a true account to simply debunk.

I would like to dismiss a good few cases and that would give the impression that everything else is a hoax, psychological or misidentification and I have looked at the strength of debunker explanations and they do not work or are easily exposed as truth twisting or lies. I went into working on UFO Contact to dismiss the big cases and achieve my goal. I failed. I tried very hard but failed.

This is why we need to keep truthful records because even if they are not 100% proof but are very strong anecdotal evidence. In the future that anecdotal may be very important.