You ask how will this play out? Time will tell. But, that is a very interesting and complex question, and I have a suspicion we don't even know who all the players are. Possible out comes,- economic collapse leading to anarchy or tyranny, and because of politics- global nuclear war, or planetary incineration via scalar weapons, or planetary enslavement via micro chipping and mind control, or a take off on the singularity- extermination of humans by robots. Or on a positive note, a quantum leap in human abilities by genetic improvement causing a corresponding improvement in society. ( side note, they, the ET's, may take the same position, regarding humanity, that the Europeans did regarding the waring primitives of Pupua New Guinea -- impose order -- this possibility could be inferred by the events in this link dealing with UFO's compromising US Nuclear Weapons -- http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS1669 ... RN20100915
Of course we could be nothing more then an interesting subject of study. Personally, I have a preference for the quantum leap out come, and so do others.
As to the work of Loyd Pye, I watch his work with some interest since I have an interest in the unusual.
It appears you to take the logical scientific approach to the ET topic, and this is the respected position . I like to think I use a similar approach regarding many topics as well. However for some topics such as the ET issue I take a different approach, which is similar to the one used in the legal profession, called "the preponderance of the evidence" And yes as with the ET subject, one must be careful not to be sucked into superstition, delusion and fraud, and yet be willing to adjust one's ideas when new information is presented.
Somethings can be called absolutely true, for example, 2+2=4, where as other things can confidently be considered untrue, for example, white unicorns living in cities on the bottom of the ocean. The ET topic falls some where between absolutely true and confidently untrue. The questing is where do we place the ET issue?
Apollo 14 Dr. Edgar Mitchell exposes ET cover Up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iNMPdbnkcw
As for Loyd Pye's credentials, in that he is self taught and not peer reviewed or is unscientific. -- Well, when you are self taught there is a positive, you have not learned what you should not question, the negative is that you may not know what is known. ( a Loyd Pye up date https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shv ... da4bc0ad42
) Also, peer reviewed does not always mean correct. A recent example of this is the climate scandal.
Yes, one must not be taken in by foolishness. But, there are many examples of what is considered acceptable or approved that are in conflict with existing "artifacts" or observations. These are then simply dismissed, ignored or ridiculed, because they raise uncomfortable questions with those that "know" what should be. An example of this is the current disagreement between those in astronomy that believe that gravity is the primary force in the universe - the accepted mode of thinking - and those that believe it is the electric force . The electric force is 10 to the 39th power greater then gravity, and by comparison, it makes gravity almost unimportant. The gravity thinking astronomers are many times surprised and baffled by what they find in space. Where as, the electric universe group predict and explain what is and what will be discovered. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... nterim.htm
They have even conducted experiments that illustrate how new astronomical discoveries were created. And using the electric theory they also illustrate that the electric force is scalable from the atomic to intergalactic scale. The problem that astronomy has is that the gravity approach and most of the math and theories that go with it, would have to be discarded by the mainstream astronomers in order for them to accept the electric theory. Too many people have their lives, beliefs, careers and funding tied to the gravity approach, so to accept this change is unthinkable, even if it stares them in the face.
We live in interesting times.