At least this William Henry sounds a lot like mistaking nonphysical things for physical. Examples:

"advanced humans live in the center of the galaxy" = Advanced human beings live closer to Source which is the center of our reality system. The respective planes are also called "inner planes" for their closer psychological distance to Source.
"humans transform into beings of light" = As far as I know we already are.

A lot of the stuff for example in the Bible would make sense to me if we wouldn't take it so physically literal, but that's only my opinion. Same is true for the gnostic gospels if they indeed mean the same thing. For example the anthroposophic interpretation of gnostic secrets has a lot in common with the theosophic view on things, and places many things in nonphysical reality which makes sense to me.

What I noticed about UFO literature is that almost any of them is a "literalist." (Made that term up. ) That's why I find Raymond Fowler so remarkable because he just reports what Andreasson saw, which includes NDE- and OBE-like experiences involving greys. I personally don't think that greys play a role in the afterlife in a literal sense, but that this is what Andreasson made of what she saw by whatever perceptory means available to her. Our belief system literally shapes what we see. I even think that's what's behind some screen memories.

IIRC remember Fowler did not offer a convoluted theory about how all of this fits together. And Johannes Fiebag, my absolute favorite among the UFO and paranormal phenomena authors, used all this material to conclude that the UFO phenomenon possesses attributes outside our physical frame of reference and also a direct connection with the human subconsciousness, both personal and transpersonal. This was indeed a refreshing idea when compared to for example Budd Hoppkins, the king of literalists.

For all these years seeing a strong connection with nonphysical phenomena has rendered these things less complex for me, while the literalists just keep on growing huge complex theories of how all of this fits together. The problem is that sometimes even the individual facts may be valid, but that doesn't mean the linking of them is also correct. That's what I see in many UFO authors and certainly most conspiracy theorists.

Er, um, got a bit carried away.