Interesting ghost story, Montana. Let me touch on that first, as it will help clarify what follows. And what follows is for everyone, hence its generic nature.
Ghosts. The very word conjures up all sorts of notions that have ridged enforcers in both Eastern and Western views. Most commonly, it's a "disembodied spirit". That is kind of what happens with UFOs, and more specifically, ancient aliens -- Many assume the earlier, knee-jerk "explanation" to hold true to all who use the same word. For example, a "ghost" could be residual energy, a memory imprinted on time-space that is just replaying, or some other phenomena entirely. What's important is to recognize that it's there, that people report it, and then go forward.
Ancient aliens has this problem big time. When you say "alien", people tend to still assume little green men. A '50s concept at best. But "alien" can mean extra-terrestrial, or inter-dimensional, or time-traveler, or unknown civilization on Earth, or anything else. So, when I speak of "ancient aliens", I don't necessarily mean a big mothership hovered over the Giza site and dictated the placement of stones. It's easy to see it that way, but, as I always say, "consider possibilities". For example, "aliens helping build the pyramid" could just as well be some single entity, a refugee from a lost civilization or someone who stepped between dimensions, giving the ancient Egyptians new ideas on how to build bigger monuments. In fact, many South American cultures have just such legends.
Legends, like ghosts and aliens, are the trail-head. It's a shame that mainstream scientists don't embrace these trail-heads and explore them. Typically, they turn away from the trail-head because they see something in the distance they assume the trail leads to. But, the jungle of the unknown is tangled and complex, and trails wind and fork, and may lead to different discoveries entirely. So, I like to point out the trail-heads, and then encourage better trained individuals to go explore them. Now, having walked the trail already myself, I can say what I "know" to be out there, but until people walk it themselves, they'll never have anything but my testimony.
Looking back through the thread here, I have, countless times, said I encourage people to look at things and decide for themselves. That I'm not the be-all-end-all of it, or any type of authority. Certainly I've stood by what I know because I've experienced it first-hand, as anyone should, but I'm also always urging people to experience it themselves. Indeed, explore the trail a bit, but with an open-mind.
And when I speak of how the mainstream doesn't have a solid story, it's because of little gaps. Pieces of the puzzle that seem to be missing. Maybe they will be found one day, but until they are, we should consider all possibilities. Just as we should consider all possibilities with ghosts -- spirits, "recordings", some psychic phenomena, or anything else. We just don't know. Don't write off or ridicule a possibility because you don't like it or you don't like the messenger. As I said in the very beginning, check it out for yourself.
On matters of scientific credentials: If my saying the establishment was this or that offended someone, the proper thing to do would have been to say, right off the bat, "deMille, you may or may not realize it, but such statements seem unprofessional and out of place, and here's why . . ." Instead, I just got insults directly, making others' arguments, at the very least, no more valid than my "insulting" ones. If am *am* the bad guy, others should have taken the high road, but instead, they seemed to take a lower road. That, certainly, is not going to convince me I was out of line.
I do respect scientific credentials. I have many friends who are scientists.