My self-moniker of 'Skeptisaurus' is perhaps misleading. For one thing the word 'sceptic' simply means 'someone who maintains doubt.' And in the field of paranormal subjects this can only be a healthy thing.
As a youth I had a huge, unbound interest and enthusiasm for the likes of UFOs and indeed in particular 'The Philadelphia Experiment'. My approach to these things was unquestionably that of a believer and there was no end to my fascination with the possibilities of their being a reality to them.
As an adult, however, being more experienced in the ways of human nature and the infinite motivations of human belief, I found myself questioning the very foundations of these type of phenomenon and now regard the wild theories connected with them with more level headed thinking. I take much more of a 'Fortean' viewpoint than before. Especially now my criteria for what is regarded as 'credible' evidence is so much more rigorous - as it should be.
As a result it always strikes me as odd how many people would rather leap to the acceptance of a fantastical explanation to any story than the more mundane but more plausible one to do with human deceit and lies no matter what the motivation for such deception might be.
As a person who was once the succesful perpetrator of a schoolboy UFO hoax myself, I know that the human desire to put one over on our fellow human beings is almost unlimited in the same way that the capacity to be an unblinking-believer of the apparently inexplicable is as well.
From my viewpoint, strange goings on of any kind are only as good as the veracity of the claims. And when it comes to actually exploring the actual evidence of the likes of a Montauk for example,
I've seen nothing that would lead me to conclude that the so-called evidence is above repproach.
Add to this the usual, myth-making cloud of chinese whispers the paranormal community lends such an event and it can always appear more plausible than it is in actuality.
Your argument is coherant, but to my mind, ultimately unmoving.
P.S. I was drawing comparisons to George Adamski more in connection with the John Titor case. Here, many choose to believe the word of the one. Though with regard to Montauk, does it really matter how many people add to the lie? It would still (at the end of the day) be a lie.