I have seen zero evidence that Q is not truthful. Since I have looked every day for a very long time for such evidence and have seen zero evidence it is, imo, unreasonable to doubt that Q is telling the truth on this as well.

That doesn't mean I trust Q. I most certainly do not trust Q. I trust exactly zero entities, but in court, in science, in all of our endeavors into Truth we have standards for "proof." The highest standard for proof in court is beyond a reasonable doubt. Since I have seen zero reason to doubt Q's truthfulness despite spending a great deal of my life looking in earnest for untruthfulness, it becomes unreasonable to doubt Q's truthfulness.

Again, trust is not the same thing as thinking someone is telling you the truth. I am always on the lookout for Q lies. I will remain ever vigilant, but until I find a single one, I will not doubt the truthfulness of Q, since Q has been the most truthful source of information I have ever found.

That is, fyi, exactly "empirical research practice." Any assumption of "not truthful" with both an "in depth search" and without finding a single "reason to doubt" the truthfulness would be not empirical but emotional.

Regardless however, this is about what Q said. Q said, unequivically, that aliens are real. The only way that Q can be both telling the truth (an assumption) and telling us aliens are real is if aliens have been here or are still here or have always been here. I see no other way for both of those things to be true. This is not my desire this is an application of logic to the assumption and the statement.