cameras and ghosts

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not saying that I personally have been "at odds" with debunkers. However, I have observed that if normally rational people cannot come up with an explanation for something, instead of discussing THAT, they harp on one miniscule part of the story that they do understand.

For instance, I had already said that the batteries probably weren't charged all the way, and yet people continued to post that the batteries weren't charged all the way and pretty much said that I was in denial or didn't know what I was talking about.

Obsessing about one specific thing isn't really a tactic of a debunker or a believer. It's the tactic of a person who believes so strongly in their own ideas that they cannot bear to explore something that they don't understand or for which they have no explanation.

I'm sorry, but right now, you are the one obsessing. Every detail of your report has been given at least one, in some cases several mundane explanations. If you prefer to believe in non-mundane explanations after that, well that's your choice. I, for one, consider the case closed.

Hans

 

[Soapy Sam]

Well, there are at least two cases here, Hans.
1. The case of the vidcam failure.
2. The case of why someone of (apparently) a generally rational character would post such a report on a sceptic board, without having the sort of technical data to hand which it ought to be obvious people will ask for.

Case 1, assuming it happened at all, is a commonplace type of anecdote- remember how cars used to lose power in UFO anecdotes?

I'm more interested in case 2.
Sweetkb713- You seem inclined to accept that electrical problems are quite possible and that the group went to the site hoping for something odd to report. So what did you hope, or expect to hear from people at this board? You seemed interested by the possibility of an EM effect- but why seek complex explanations when you appear satisfied that much simpler ones were available from the start?