"but instead allow their statements to imply that something must be true, then they can avoid having to acknowledge they are "claiming" something to be true"

I think for whatever reason you just interprete things that way. I dont get why things have to be only either or with you? If someone explains an experience they had without comming to conclusions than why do you always assume that they are implying that they are claiming it to be true? I mean this is something that you have said numerous times that makes absolutly no sense to me. If someone describes an experience that would be in line with other experiences in the esoteric literature that is not the same as a person describing the experience and claiming it IS proof of some kind of esoteric reality. I see lots of people talking about experiences they have and you just comming in and telling them they are wrong or they are somehow claiming to to be "true" when they have done no such thing.

"More evidence for what I've been saying all along: ANYONE can be wrong...and being wrong is EXTREMELY common in the human experience"

I agree..but how can you be sure that you are not wrong then as well some of the time? I mean, no offence but you have no experience at all with DMT or any psychedelics at all. When asked about it you just talk about how much you have meditated. There is nothing wrong with that I think meditation is great but it is not the psychedelic thing. A large dose of a tryptamine psychedelic is nothing like meditation at all. If you have not had the experience yet still have so many opinions on the topic, while believing that humans are often wrong than you must concider the possability that you are wrong.