So forget the motives. IMO people who claim to know that UFOs are from some particular star system and claim to know their motives are full of crap.
If the "whys" are too silly to entertain, focus on the "whats" instead.
Until the government repeals all those laws against regular folk coming into contact with ETs and UFOs, the study of UFOs will be one of deductive reasoning, rather than "hard science" with glossy textbooks on exobiological autopsies and reverse engineering updates in Popular Mechanics.
In the case of the Brazilian sighting, "what" it was was not a bird, not a plane, not a cloud, not superman, not a planet, not a comet, not swamp gas, not a rain of frogs... "what" it was was a large seemingly solid object shaped like two plates attached at the rims, moving at a a high rate of speed, reversing direction over an island, and accelerating off towards the horizon.
It was a UFO. We can't say that it was a spaceship from Zeta Reticuli. We can't say it was a military blimp.
We only can say that it is that which is unkown.
So forget the motives. IMO people who claim to know that UFOs are from some particular star system and claim to know their motives are full of crap. If the "whys" are too silly to entertain, focus on the "whats" instead.
They're not too silly to entertain. You cannot know their motives, but the least you expect from rational beings is consistency in their motives. I don't see that. Also, what are the motives of the government to keep this so quiet? That's the real problem I have. Crap, why doesn't Dubya come out and say "Clinton was lying to you -- there are aliens who have contacted us, and here is the evidence"? "Why" is an incredibly important question to ask. Until the government repeals all those laws against regular folk coming into contact with ETs and UFOs,
Like I said, I don't think those laws exist. I think that's someone putting a spin on a law that's isn't nearly as pointed as you're painting it.
I'm sure someone may believe they were prosecuted under a law that said that, but I'm guessing its more of a paraphrase. For example, there's probably a law that says its unlawful to remove debris from a crash site. Not a UFO crash site, but any crash site. And for obvious reasons. There may be hazardous cargo aboard, or you want to conduct an investigation into the cause of the crash so you can prevent it in the future. To save lives, you know. Or maybe its a military plane with some highly secretive components or cargo. All legitimate, non-UFO related reasons for that law.
Yet, you imply that such laws are part of a dark conspiracy to hide "the truth" from the American people. And until such laws are repealed, we can only assume that they really are trying to cover things up.
While I don't discount the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere, or even that such life may possibly have visited or observed our planet, the reports and observations to date are not consistent with the level of technology one would expect of such visitors. And the idea of a massive government conspiracy to conceal such contact is both irrational and unsupported.
If you've seen the links that have been posted, the only such law that even arguably did that was repealed more than a decade ago. Presumably, there should have been a flood of hard evidence by now.