In an effort to better clarify my position, let's consider a completely different topic.
The
Day Care Sex Abuse hysteria, that ran from the 80's into the 90's.
For those of you who don't recall, there multiple multiple cases where a day care facility was accused of child sexual abuse, often with allegations of Satanic rituals playing a role.
There were plenty of convictions, and the news reports of the day made this seem like an "epidemic".
In most, if not all, of these cases, the convictions were overturned and the charges revealed to be baseless.
So why were so many people charged with these horrific crimes?
A contributing factor is that people got the idea in their head that this was happening, and so they used that idea as a framework for the minor bits of evidence they had.
This is the same mental construct process I described before.
People believed that there was child sexual abuse, not because there was significant evidence to support that conclusion, but because they already had the meme of that abuse in their mind that they then hung the tiny bits of evidence upon it.
They then searched for any other evidence, and filtered all of that within the context of the conclusion they were predisposed to believe.
Margaret Talbot of the NY Times had this to say about the hysteria.
When you once believed something that now strikes you as absurd, even unhinged, it can be almost impossible to summon that feeling of credulity again. Maybe that is why it is easier for most of us to forget, rather than to try and explain, the Satanic-abuse scare that gripped this country in the early 80's — the myth that Devil-worshipers had set up shop in our day-care centers, where their clever adepts were raping and sodomizing children, practicing ritual sacrifice, shedding their clothes, drinking blood and eating feces, all unnoticed by parents, neighbors and the authorities
So how could so many people, accept such an "absurd" idea?
Were they stupid? Ignorant? Malicious? Mislead?
No, they were simply thinking the way all humans think, using the mental construct process I've described.
Most of the time this process works fine to help us understand and explain the world.
Most of the time,when the process "fails', and by fail I mean what someone "think they know" exceeds what they "know they know" and what they think isn't correct, the consequences are not that big a deal.
However, when these 'failures" occur in the legal system, then there can be significant problems.
The sex abuse cases are not the only example of when this type of "failure" have resulted in incorrect indictments and convictions, we can all find examples of others.
So we need to be aware of how people think and ask ourselves what do we "know we know" and what do we "think we know", when considering any question.
IMHO, the vast majority of the ET evidence is of the "think we know" variety.
The vast majority of the "know we know" evidence is precisely described by the acronym UFO.
It is "unidentified". That means we don't know what it is.
That doesn't mean that it has no explanation, but that the person making the observation doesn't know what it is.
IMHO, it is absurd to leap to the conclusion that because it is unknown, it
must be ET in a spaceship.
It might be, then again, it might not.
As Pyxis pointed out, ball lightning is common near her. So if someone sees it, it isn't "unidentified" and so no big whoop.
For someone not familiar with it, they would likely have a Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment and it would be "unidentified".
So does that mean the second person would be justified to conclude they saw ET in a space craft?
If you say no, then why is it legitimate for
any unexplained observation to be described as ET in a space craft?
:shitfan:
