"You have no proof"

"You weren't there"

Lately, I've noticed comments on our channel, other channels abroad, and social media about Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Even YouTube shows, hosted by people with millions of followers that I enjoy, have discussed this. Then, inevitably, someone says, "You have no proof."

A recent comment suggested that dreams can have long-lasting effects, but they are still just dreams Often, these views come from self-proclaimed experts with science degrees, relying on hearsay rather than solid scientific analysis or evidence. They weren't there and have no real proof to back their claims.

From my experience, dreams rarely have a lasting impact. More often than not, I forget what I dreamt two days ago. It's uncommon to have a dream so significant that it sticks with you for life. If it does, there's likely more to it than just being a dream.

Consider the possibility that we might be dealing with advanced intelligences that have evolved for thousands, if not millions, of years. They could be both physical and spiritual beings with the ability to enter our dreams, physically remove us, and more—all while we're asleep. Usually, this would happen without us ever knowing.

Science seldom explores such ideas outside its "Dogma Box," depriving itself of valuable data that could transform our understanding of consciousness.

"You have no proof," is something we've heard countless times. My response is, "You have no proof to the contrary." We have substantial evidence—enough to convict someone ten times over in a court of law. Yet it's conveniently denied by arrogant scientists and religious leaders, whom many blindly follow without critical thinking or personal research on the subject. It's still hearsay.

So, when debunkers say, "You have no proof," counter with, "Where is your proof?"

Finally, when someone is fully awake and in the presence of other witnesses, how can that be a dream or a shared delusion? Thousands of such cases have been reported, and they can't all be dismissed by the weak perspectives of so-called experts.