posted on May, 21 2015 @ 06:45 PM
a reply to: phillfenton
It doesn't even come close does it really? Why is that, the police forensics crew and those police who visited the site didn't immediately pick up
on this as the "explanation"? After all, it would saved them all some considerable time, not to mention expense at carrying out a proper crime scene
investigation replete with forensics. The bottom line is, you are really saying neither the original witness, or the police were as bright as you and
were actually, really rather daft aren't you>? Your implication is that, the original witness and the police were caught up in the "hysteria" of
the incident when , the reality is there is absolutely no suggestion of either is there?
So, to sum up, the original witness had an accident and then concocted this story to hide having an accident and then deliberately took the police to
a different site he'd already decided might match the scene of the real accident. Why would he have done that? Given he never had a similar incident
post this one, what was he trying to hide? You can dress it up as nicely as you like, behind all the words you are in effect saying. "The bloke
hadn't a clue where he was and scared people would think he was some how ill, concocted a story that would make look like even more of a nutter than
if he had just had some mental spasm?".
Why not go the full "Klass approach". He'd been snorting daytura, using belladonna as eye-drops, couldn't tell a tree from a car and was just out
of his gourd and didn't want to fess up to his wife because he'd come home late with his trousers ripped ?
To my mind this is one of those cases where there are only three answers. Firstly that, it happened exactly as the witness said it did or secondly, it
was someone with no experience of a "psychedelic experience" that can be triggered by any number of outside factors and he was convinced the
experience was real. The third is probably the most out there and yet, might well be the most coherent, it was a "directed" experience, part
illusory in nature, part real and that the witness, might well have triggered some sort of "soft defence mechanism" in some sort of robotic drone.
The origin and technology of that drone being the moot point.