reply to post by Charla†an
Firstly... of all the threads on this site, this one
makes you shake your head in despair?
(Sorry. It's not mean laughter, even if it looks like it.)
May I ask you (even though someone else may have to reply because God knows when I'll be back), why do you consider that 1987 report "genuine" and the
others, from previous centuries, not?
(BTW, there seem to have been more recent cases, too.)
Because all the people who lived before the advent of visual accessibility (film, visual recording, that makes everything about our times seem more
credible) - or perhaps even before the generation that currently "owns" the world - were ignorant wretches?
Well, they weren't. Far from it.
Nor were all the people of yore as gullible as Hollywood and bad history textbooks like to portray them.
But ignorance, or the lack thereof, is not even the point.
People may have been (and many still are) ignorant of our modern interpretations of the various physical (and para-physical) phenomena, and their
individual mind frames may have been influenced by religion or superstitions or both - but none of that necessarily means that their reports about
strange goings-on were false OR that they were, all of them, simply misinterpretations of natural phenomena.
They may have been; but we have no proof whatsoever on which to base such a dismissal.
And "proof" works both ways, lest we get intellectual and scientific dishonesty.
Furthermore, you stated that "beyond a doubt, there is a higher-than-normal magnetic activity present in the area".
In my opinion, NOTHING is ever beyond doubt, not even seemingly 100% confirmed physical "facts" - but wouldn't the presence of such strong magnetic
activity dictate that the possible effects of such activity upon human dimensional perception (or whatever one may wish to call it) be properly
examined, including traditional "folk" reports about unusual experiences in the area?
Finally, while I totally agree - generally speaking - with your (implicit) statement that articulate writing can be obfuscating and no more than smoke
and mirrors, I think sometimes it can justifiably lend credibility to what is being said. And this is such a case. Think about it: how likely it is
that so many people who are obviously educated and intelligent enough to use proper language, even on the internet (!), would waste their time and
resources on a subject if it were really devoid of any value?
Anyway, I hope - for your sake, obviously - that you heed BlueOrb's advice and read the entire thread.
Even better, reread it with a little more benefit of doubt in your mind.
OR - why not? - come up with some good, valid, provable arguments against the credibility of the reports and thoughts that have been discussed
That would be very constructive, and I know certainly I would enjoy reading it.
edit on 11-9-2010 by Vanitas because: Corrected some more tpyos AND the edit