a reply to: interupt42
I believe that your assessment of
"nothing to back it up"
is overly . . . blackwashing . . . for no good reason.
1. Springer vetted Tom. That's NOT "nothing."
2. Tom's personality factors etc. are congruent within the whole picture of Tom, his values, his persona, his goals, his history, his style.
3. Tom's story is also at least largely congruent within itself.
None of the above 3 = "nothing."
They wouldn't equal "nothing" to a top flight detective.
They don't equal "nothing," to me.
I still have NO reason to be hyper-skeptical toward Tom--regardless of how extraordinary his narrative is.
1. The topic is INHERENTLY extraordinary.
2. The old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" simply doesn't hold water at some point.
2.1 At some point, an addicted, compulsive marriage to that now trite claim merely sets one up for a virtually certain FALSE NEGATIVE ERROR.
3. HOW does one come up with "extraordinary proof" in a set of reality where such "proofs" are BY DESIGN virtually impossible to come up with?
3.1 Is the ONLY alternative in the search for truth to merely shake one's head mystify-ingly and walk away as absolutely ignorant and clueless as one
was in the beginning?
3.2 I personally, to NOT think so.
4. Sure--filtering out the signal from the noise is a super challenge in such arenas. So what.
5. a SUPER CHALLENGE does NOT equal impossible.