John, thank you for your article jampacked with interesting questions and facts. I share your frustration in the other direction: "Why is it so hard to believe that there is still no hard evidence about E.T. origins?" Perhaps 50% of the problem is about the "confirmation bias" and the way we use adjectives and adverbs. We tend to use the kind of language to confirm our beliefs and emotions. For example (and please don't take this as a personal criticism but textual criticism), when you say that a certain commission is "seriously studying" this matter, how "serious" you mean? What is the true meaning of the adverb "seriously"? Like, do they have an office with a dedicated staff? Are they publishing reports with evidence/data about E.T. origins? Do they have a spokesperson? How "closely" the commission is working with CNES? I have a feeling you know more about the issue than I do. But I can also sense an effort to bolster your beliefs with adverbs that I'd like to know more about. The devil is in the details. In the end, however, I think you will agree that no one on this planet knows exactly what's going on. That's why I consider skepticism, demand for hard evidence, and attention paid to language is the rational thing to do when it comes to the allegedly-E.T. origins of UFOs.