Nothing's changed your mind, but you elect not to respond constructively to arguments presented. Isn't that a little like repeatedly responding with: "because", you know, like those little pre-pubescent members of our society do?
There's really nothing more that can be added constructively. You haven't changed my mind, I'm not going to change your mind, so sometimes it's just better to agree to disagree, don't you think? Or, as the old saying goes: "If you can't understand my silence, how will you *ever* understand my words?"
Oh dear, how do we deal with somebody who's fallen so deeply into this trap, as I had when I took my first steps into the Forum with
this thread? I suppose you could heed the views and advice provided therein, but I somehow think that might be just a little too much to ask for.
Well, I'll say this as nicely as I can: If you let someone else convince you that your memory is false, tainted, inaccurate or whatever they want to label it, that's all on you, SouthWind, not me. You've allowed someone else to create your memory for you. I don't allow other others to dictate to me what I remember or know. Believe it or not, I can relate to your story in that link, as I have experienced similar sightings myself, and have had even closer, more personal experiences. No one, and I do mean NO ONE, will convince me otherwise, nor will they dictate to me what I saw. They weren't there, *I* was. It's really just that simple.
Nobody has to prove anything here, Doug. But if we're to debate the events of that day meaningfully and constructively, then we have to consider possibilities and probabilities in light of the facts. Five people providing witness statements is a fact. The accuracy of those statements is not. If you maintain that witness statements should be considered to be reliable then you will likely never change your views. If, however, you take some time (your own sweet time, that is) to research the topic of accuracy or otherwise of human recollections, and how memory works, then you might start to wonder more objectively. Your call Doug.
I reject psychobabble 100%. It's a wholesale pseudo-science enterprise invented to make people who couldn't cut it in the medical field rich. We can't leave out the facts when considering other possibilities and probabilities. Period. The number of witnesses I provided (5) isn't the total sum of witnesses that reported Flight 93 being over Indian Lake. Residents of Indian Lake Village called the sheriff's office and reported a plane flying overhead, falling apart and
dropping pieces on their houses and in their yards. The information is available to anyone who is interested enough to look for it. I'm not here to do the homework for everyone, or anyone for that matter.
Oh no Doug, no need for waiting with me, I like to keep the debate ticking nicely along. Shall we start by listing the facts you've provided, first ...? Er ... I'm struggling a little here. Tell you what, why don't you go first Doug, you obviously have in infallible memory!
I never said my memory was infallible, did I? I said I remember ONE EVENT, a major traumatic event, like it happened 10 minutes ago. If you're struggling with the facts, I would suggest going back through this thread a few pages and refreshing your memory. The simple fact is that the witness testimony on the day of the event differs sharply from the government released "data", which was released 5 months later.
