reply to post by Tallsorts
If we were dealing just with the more impenetrable and cryptic aspects of reality, then there would be precious little opportunity, or even need, to
engage in any type of discussion other than theoretical. But we aren’t just dealing with esoteric subject-matter; we are often confronted by
individuals who are insistent they have had a real and genuine experience. Not a theoretical revelation, or a measured personal consideration, but a
nuts and bolts happening.
With many esoteric things there is often no concrete proof, or if there is proof of some kind, then it is not of a scientific nature, but does
this really matter.
The evidence in the case of esoteric phenomena is ephemeral, and therefore purely speculative, except to the experiencer. There are many excellent
threads that deal specifically with such concepts, and offer only literal explanations for their premises. Unless one is comfortably familiar with the
content of this often highly spiritual, New Age theology, then it is best to learn from the posts rather than demand corroboration. As you say, in
this case, there is no concrete proof available. And it is in these threads that the discussion becomes truly enlightening as they attract well versed
and capable conversationalists.
But the same absolutely cannot be said for the “'___' threads”.
One of the most valuable aspects of ATS, is that people who have experienced, or think they have experienced the paranormal, have a place to
share their story, and get help if possible.
Perfectly put. But if only it were that straight forward. How do you begin to discern the genuine from the hoaxer/deluded/self-deceiving threads?
Well, by asking questions for a start, preferably ones that are designed to extract information not only about the “experience”, but the reason
behind the “experiencer” wanting to tell ATS about it.
This will undoubtedly dig out the cranks and hoaxers, but at least the genuine people get heard as well.
The problem created by hoaxers et all, is that the genuine posters reporting the same phenomena become grouped with
them. And that is not their
fault. We have read of countless experiences, many genuine sounding and that is more than likely exactly what they were. But because of the almost
pack mentality that has developed as a result of the influx of hoaxers etc., the authentic accounts get descended upon and torn apart. And that is not
How do you tell the genuine from the fake?
If a fake story is told with aplomb by someone who is a half decent writer and who has researched their account well enough, then it is difficult to
say the least. Here, in my opinion, time must be taken to allow the poster to become comfortable in their thread. Confidence can breed overconfidence
and hopefully that will show up in inconsistencies occurring that really shouldn’t be there.
Sometimes there are key points in their story, which more knowledgeable ATS members in that field will recognise as true, whereas their lack of
certain key points may suggest they are a fake.
Here is where a hoaxer gains a following; most fakers don’t want an argument, or even answer awkward questions. If they include recognizable
content, as in data and description and sentiments already recorded in previous, real accounts, then there is a small section of the populace who will
automatically believe them, no questions asked. Doubters may well contribute to the thread, and be ignored or looked down upon with pity, but it is
this pre-made captive group of adherents, and no matter how small, that the faker is after.
I understand that a certain religion says that the Saviour will come to Earth from Heaven once again. Although one may be sceptical about this,
I suppose it could happen, and what then if it did? Just suppose a new post on ATS said that the OP had seen the reincarnated Saviour, how many would
believe them? (This is not a dig at Christians) How many would say they were crazy?
You, like myself, may have only read of certain Christian prophets, or been exposed to Biblical stories on the cinema and television. And if you have,
and even if you don’t agree with the creed, you will have to admit that they were well presented
. Obviously God chooses his representatives
well; Moses supposedly had a terrible stutter, so his brother Aaron became his mouthpiece after learning the message perfectly for example.
So why are we supposed to accept the veracity of posters who cannot articulate a single coherent sentence who then insist they have a message from
supposedly advanced beings? Are “alien” criteria for speaking to humans that lax that they choose bad orators? Somehow, that doesn’t make sense.
When was the last time you saw someone in a position of extreme importance who could not articulate convincingly. Even George Bush could give a speech
writen for him.
All I am saying is, that some stories which sound incredible may have some truth in them,
Yes they might, in fact I hope some do. We need something wonderful to happen to us as a species.
But it is not only important, but imperative
that hoaxers be made aware that if they come here they will either face total silence, or a well
balanced and logical approach to their claims that will include a distinctly skeptical slant. And if you have had a real
you wade through all of the serial doubters simply because you were telling the truth?