Actually, the "most plausible" explanation is that the conspiracy press likes to circulate unsubstantiated rumors which bolster their Conspiracy Of The Week(tm). For example, the "aired-once BBC program" sounds less like an actual BBC program, and more like rumors that one had once aired, passed along by a "friend of a friend".
the sources etc. you described were primarily it . . .IF the sources you described were "only" several dozen and IF THEY TRULY tended to be of the urban legend type beginning to end . . .
I'd have to agree with you.
But even the "urban legend" portion would probably be 100's of different bits and pieces from as many sources of disperate stories yet seemingly from the same chapter or at least near chapters in the same book.
BUT I CONSIDER THE URBAN LEGEND TYPE AND PORTION OF SUCH DATA TO BE A REAL MINORITY OF THE WHOLE . . . MAYBE 5-20%.
The more convincing stuff to me I used to guesstimate at 300+ independent sources; independent stories etc. Now, I'd have to guesstimate it at being more than 3,000 and possibly as many as 10's of thousands. Most of these sources of information have never before experienced receiving such information. Many of them have never told anyone before hearing of something similar from someone else.
Many such individuals are young--maybe 8-12 years old as well as up to 80's and 90's. Most have never experienced such things before. They haven't been preoccupied with the subjects or even thought about the topics before. The information has come unbidden, vividly and often repeatedly. . . for years. . . though seemingly with succeeding years, more and more people experience similar things.
And THAT'S "merely" one very hard to explain type/source of a diversity of information but again, as though from the same book. Let's guesstimate this portion of the overall data stream as around 40-60%.
Then there's the sort of thing reported at least partially on Fox as related at the below URL:
http://www.yowusa.com/Archive/December2000/mexico1/mexico1.htm
I'm in the process of checking it out through old friends in San Diego. But it rings true in my bones. And I HAVE TO ALSO ACCEPT THAT I HAVE FELT "IN MY BONES" AND SPIRIT FOR MORE THAN 28 YEARS THAT ROUGHLY THIS VERY THING WOULD SOMEDAY BE TRUE. Even having felt that way for 28+ years, I was still stunned to read the specific graphic incident descriptions of it.
Let's say that sort of information is around 20-30% of the whole.
Then let's throw in personally related incidents and obseervations from military etc. sorts of people who are known to close friends or relatives. Let's consider the portion of the whole that this sort of information and sources would be around 20-30%. . . many of these stories are told with sweating and maybe tears and shaking wherein the sources are terrified to tell the stories and terrified not to--in some cases--burly men not heretofore terrified of anything.
Add in just the tip of the iceberg--consider that what has been exposed about Bimbo Crusher and Hillfanny to be ONLY THE TIP OF THEIR ICEBERG. . . consider that that sort of information is "only" 5-10% of the whole.
Add in things like The Bible; The Bible Codes; ancient Maya, Hopi and other such documents. Assume that such sources comprise 3-5% of the data stream.
Assume that the number of puzzle pieces is in excess of 1,000,000. Assume that 50-70% of the puzzle pieces are on the table. . . . that there are thousands of clusters of puzzle pieces of varying sizes. But the overall picture's major components are beginning to be clearer than not clear.
Assume that of all the pieces offered as from the above sots of sources (and I think I've forgotten 2-3 of the significant types and sources)--assume that all the pieces fit at least some of the types, colors, forms, outlines of at least significant portions of the pieces already on the table.
And you're going to tell me that all such is "mere" urban legend. I'd have to reply that you have more faith based on less evidence than I can muster.
I'm no longer allowed that kind of "whistling by the graveyard" attitude; that "faith in denying the evidence" toward all I've known and reviewed over the last 30 years.
I also have to face the fact that my sense in my spirit about such things has been far more accurate the last 30 years than it has been inaccurate. . . . particularly when the sense reaches a certain level of intensity.
I can understand your perspective. It is by far the more comfortable one. Part of me comes kicking and screaming to these conclusions, too. And a strong part of me still wants to vainly pretend that such things are still 10-30 years off before they become really daily uncomfortable. But I know better. I think part of you knows better, too. I think one of the reasons you have so much energy behind your incredulity is that there's an even greater energy of terror lurking behind the denial. . . the lurking suspicion, the lurking hunch, the lurking knowledge that THERE ARE TOO MANY PIECES OF THE PUZZLE FROM TOO MANY DIRECTIONS SAYING ESSENTIALLY the SAME things.