News4 mins ago
Ghosts
I would never normally consider posting a question about ghosts in this section but I think I'll get the best answer here.
I do not believe in any supernatural phenomena, however I was speaking to some members of a family we have known for years and was very surprised to find that 3 adult members of this family did. They claimed that each of them had independently seen the ghost of an old man in their bathroom, and various other seemingly paranormal events, objects moving, noises etc.
I didn't know what to say to them, I completely do not believe in these type of events yet I consider these people to be completely honest, sane and genine.
Noises and other minor events can generally be explained by logical means, but can anyone offer an explanation for actually seeing ghosts, particularly people seeing the same ghost?
Any suggestions would be greatly received, it's almost enough to make me question my own beliefs.
I do not believe in any supernatural phenomena, however I was speaking to some members of a family we have known for years and was very surprised to find that 3 adult members of this family did. They claimed that each of them had independently seen the ghost of an old man in their bathroom, and various other seemingly paranormal events, objects moving, noises etc.
I didn't know what to say to them, I completely do not believe in these type of events yet I consider these people to be completely honest, sane and genine.
Noises and other minor events can generally be explained by logical means, but can anyone offer an explanation for actually seeing ghosts, particularly people seeing the same ghost?
Any suggestions would be greatly received, it's almost enough to make me question my own beliefs.
Answers
People can be wrong, the eye in particular is untrustworth
22:23 Sun 18th Aug 2013
Octavius, //Does that mean that if you don't claim to have seen a ghost you can't have a valid opinion?//
It means you can have an opinion. Whether or not that opinion is valid is debateable.
Jim, I did provide information on the Ancient Aliens thread but you weren't reading it. I told you that ancient documents give descriptions of the extremes of temperature in space, and of the effects of gravity upon the human body during space travel but since your sole intention was clearly to debunk the whole concept - as it is here - you ignored both.
As for MMR, the Turin Shroud, and dowsing, I'll tell you - yet again - to stop putting words into my mouth. I have discussed all those things here, and called them into question, but that doesn't equate to what you are suggesting. That is disingenuous.
As for the reasons that people claim to see 'ghosts', your points don't need addressing. We all know that the human mind plays tricks and I would not dream of claiming that to be false - simply that on occasions I don't believe that to be the explanation. Incidentally, my experience doesn't come from reading books aimed at children.
Moving on is a good idea, so until someone produces something a bit less repetitive than your posts which contain nothing that isn't generally known, I'll leave it there. Your curiosity appears to be non-existent and hence this discussion has descended into the usual puerile and unproductive argument.
Hypognosis, yes, I've read about that too. Quite fascinating.
It means you can have an opinion. Whether or not that opinion is valid is debateable.
Jim, I did provide information on the Ancient Aliens thread but you weren't reading it. I told you that ancient documents give descriptions of the extremes of temperature in space, and of the effects of gravity upon the human body during space travel but since your sole intention was clearly to debunk the whole concept - as it is here - you ignored both.
As for MMR, the Turin Shroud, and dowsing, I'll tell you - yet again - to stop putting words into my mouth. I have discussed all those things here, and called them into question, but that doesn't equate to what you are suggesting. That is disingenuous.
As for the reasons that people claim to see 'ghosts', your points don't need addressing. We all know that the human mind plays tricks and I would not dream of claiming that to be false - simply that on occasions I don't believe that to be the explanation. Incidentally, my experience doesn't come from reading books aimed at children.
Moving on is a good idea, so until someone produces something a bit less repetitive than your posts which contain nothing that isn't generally known, I'll leave it there. Your curiosity appears to be non-existent and hence this discussion has descended into the usual puerile and unproductive argument.
Hypognosis, yes, I've read about that too. Quite fascinating.
Yet another personal attack, without justification, this time about my curiosity. It's very existent, and is why I have given these ideas such attention and done some reading into them. The results of that are the views expressed here. For someone so fond of asking me to stop putting words in your mouth, stop doing the same yourself about me and my attitudes.
I did read what you posted, too -- like I said, it was thought-provoking, but you can hardly expect me to overturn my views based on a few comments either by yourself directly or through your quoting of others, especially when they are not accepted by the bulk of scientific and academic research.
Strange Stories, Amazing Facts is not, incidentally, a children's book but was aimed at Reader's Digest readers.
Again, there is a question: if you don't believe my explanations to be the correct ones, why? What steps have you taken to show that they were not? So far you have talked about beliefs and assurances that they are not, but on what are those beliefs and assurances based? Could you defend those against the questions of scientists and assorted experts in the field?
If you could stand up and defend your opinions and survive their scrutiny, and mine, I would be very interested and curious indeed.
I did read what you posted, too -- like I said, it was thought-provoking, but you can hardly expect me to overturn my views based on a few comments either by yourself directly or through your quoting of others, especially when they are not accepted by the bulk of scientific and academic research.
Strange Stories, Amazing Facts is not, incidentally, a children's book but was aimed at Reader's Digest readers.
Again, there is a question: if you don't believe my explanations to be the correct ones, why? What steps have you taken to show that they were not? So far you have talked about beliefs and assurances that they are not, but on what are those beliefs and assurances based? Could you defend those against the questions of scientists and assorted experts in the field?
If you could stand up and defend your opinions and survive their scrutiny, and mine, I would be very interested and curious indeed.
Jim, you really must try to distinguish between a personal attack and a clear observation. You are not a victim. Not once have you asked 'what happened?', and hence anyone may be forgiven for gaining the distinct impression that you lack curiosity.
You're at it again! I haven't said your explanations aren't correct - I've said that I don't believe they're correct in every instance. And I don't like the word 'defend' - that smacks of conflict - and I don't believe that science should be in conflict with areas that it is currently unable to explain. Conflict is not the road to progress. As for you placing me under scrutiny, whilst on the surface that sounds rather lofty, to do that you would need to construct your case by gathering the relevant information - and you haven't. However, that aside, to answer your question, since science instantly rejects anything other than demonstrable evidence, any information I may be able to offer would not aid it in its research.
I don't expect you to overturn your opinions, but conversely you cannot expect other people to overturn theirs simply because you claim that, contrary to their own personal experience, you understand what is happening rather more than they do. If, as it appears, your only reason for contributing to these threads is not to investigate or to consider other opinions - or even to take part in lively debate - but to denounce anything that disagrees with your own opinion, there is no discussion. What do you actually expect from this debate - or from any other thread on a topic with which you disagree? Without once questioning the reasons people have for making their claims, you've consistently argued that your explanations are the right ones, and in effect, other people are deluded - so what now?
So the book was aimed at Readers Digest readers. Well, that explains that then. ;o)
You're at it again! I haven't said your explanations aren't correct - I've said that I don't believe they're correct in every instance. And I don't like the word 'defend' - that smacks of conflict - and I don't believe that science should be in conflict with areas that it is currently unable to explain. Conflict is not the road to progress. As for you placing me under scrutiny, whilst on the surface that sounds rather lofty, to do that you would need to construct your case by gathering the relevant information - and you haven't. However, that aside, to answer your question, since science instantly rejects anything other than demonstrable evidence, any information I may be able to offer would not aid it in its research.
I don't expect you to overturn your opinions, but conversely you cannot expect other people to overturn theirs simply because you claim that, contrary to their own personal experience, you understand what is happening rather more than they do. If, as it appears, your only reason for contributing to these threads is not to investigate or to consider other opinions - or even to take part in lively debate - but to denounce anything that disagrees with your own opinion, there is no discussion. What do you actually expect from this debate - or from any other thread on a topic with which you disagree? Without once questioning the reasons people have for making their claims, you've consistently argued that your explanations are the right ones, and in effect, other people are deluded - so what now?
So the book was aimed at Readers Digest readers. Well, that explains that then. ;o)
I've never argued that anyone is deluded. Ever. Yet you seem to insist that I am arguing that. Is this not a case of putting words into someone's mouth? It is not a case of delusion, it's a case of recognising the high potential for human error and therefore requiring significant evidence to the contrary before accepting a claim. This is not an unreasonable requirement, and for all that it appears to be restrictive and closed, or "instantly rejecting" other views, it does lead to extraordinary progress in understanding our world. Incidentally, it's not an instant rejection either. The point of other debates, and this one, was that there was a large bulk of research into at least most of these topics, yielding no results. While you can still argue that there may have been something missed (and as you cannot prove a negative this argument can never be 100% defeated), at the very least it's a false claim that there is any sort of "instant" rejection going on. That doesn't reflect the reality at all.
"...to [scrutinise my claims] you would need to construct your case by gathering the relevant information - and you haven't."
As far as I am concerned this is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, I'd argue that I do have the relevant information, or at least some of it. Not for specific cases, perhaps, but for such stories and accounts in general. What is relevant is a matter for another debate, but in principle it should include the skills necessary to scrutinise such claims.
Secondly, in principle I have no need to construct a case at all. It is up to those people who make such claims to prove their case, and not really the other way round. Rather like the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defence, the burden of proof is on the new and not the current.
"Conflict is not the road to progress." Really? I think this is a debate for another thread, but I'd argue the exact opposite. It is through conflicts, and arguments, and debates, and intense scrutiny, that scientific progress is made at least. Out of such conflict emerges ideas that are acceptable to all (or at least most), and this defines modern Scientific views. But if no-one had argued about it beforehand it wouldn't be nearly as solid or convincing. To take one famous example, the argument about the nature of light -- wave or particle -- went on for a couple of centuries, and through that argument came new ideas for experiments that tested those ideas. One of the most important experiments was Millikan's series of experiments testing Einstein's "quantum light" theory. Millikan disagreed with that theory, but tested it anyway, and tried his utmost to rule it out by experiment. The results spectacularly confirmed Einstein's theory. Conflict -- progress.
Even this debate has the potential to lead to progress on a smaller scale. More likely it will lead to one or other, or perhaps both, of us refining our arguments and how to express them. And without this conflict, I'd not have had nearly as much chance to do so. Indeed again I should say that in some earlier R&S debates I feel that you showed that some of my arguments and positions that I'd thought to be solid were anything but. Again, out of the conflict came progress (at least on a personal level). So no, I don't agree with that idea at all. Consensus is far more of a danger to progress than conflict.
"What do you actually expect from this debate..." Who knows what I hope to get out of this debate? Perhaps it really is nothing more than being unable to resist a good argument. More usefully, a long-term career goal is teaching/ tutoring/ passing on what I know and love about Science to the next generation. It's not really clear that I'm managing that here, but I hope at least to improve the way I express myself and my views for the future.
"...conversely you cannot expect other people to overturn their opinion..." Quite right and I forgot to include this in my previous post, sorry about that.
"...to [scrutinise my claims] you would need to construct your case by gathering the relevant information - and you haven't."
As far as I am concerned this is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, I'd argue that I do have the relevant information, or at least some of it. Not for specific cases, perhaps, but for such stories and accounts in general. What is relevant is a matter for another debate, but in principle it should include the skills necessary to scrutinise such claims.
Secondly, in principle I have no need to construct a case at all. It is up to those people who make such claims to prove their case, and not really the other way round. Rather like the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defence, the burden of proof is on the new and not the current.
"Conflict is not the road to progress." Really? I think this is a debate for another thread, but I'd argue the exact opposite. It is through conflicts, and arguments, and debates, and intense scrutiny, that scientific progress is made at least. Out of such conflict emerges ideas that are acceptable to all (or at least most), and this defines modern Scientific views. But if no-one had argued about it beforehand it wouldn't be nearly as solid or convincing. To take one famous example, the argument about the nature of light -- wave or particle -- went on for a couple of centuries, and through that argument came new ideas for experiments that tested those ideas. One of the most important experiments was Millikan's series of experiments testing Einstein's "quantum light" theory. Millikan disagreed with that theory, but tested it anyway, and tried his utmost to rule it out by experiment. The results spectacularly confirmed Einstein's theory. Conflict -- progress.
Even this debate has the potential to lead to progress on a smaller scale. More likely it will lead to one or other, or perhaps both, of us refining our arguments and how to express them. And without this conflict, I'd not have had nearly as much chance to do so. Indeed again I should say that in some earlier R&S debates I feel that you showed that some of my arguments and positions that I'd thought to be solid were anything but. Again, out of the conflict came progress (at least on a personal level). So no, I don't agree with that idea at all. Consensus is far more of a danger to progress than conflict.
"What do you actually expect from this debate..." Who knows what I hope to get out of this debate? Perhaps it really is nothing more than being unable to resist a good argument. More usefully, a long-term career goal is teaching/ tutoring/ passing on what I know and love about Science to the next generation. It's not really clear that I'm managing that here, but I hope at least to improve the way I express myself and my views for the future.
"...conversely you cannot expect other people to overturn their opinion..." Quite right and I forgot to include this in my previous post, sorry about that.
I think I enjoy debates like this more than can be considered healthy
Still, it beats any alternative. Viz:
MH Forum member: "Orbs!!!"
Skeptic: "Dust particles"
MH Forum member "Orbs!!!"
Skeptic: "Dust particles"
Me: "Why don't you mount 2 night vision cameras side by side, a known distance apart, so you can triangulate the two images of the orb and work out the distance from the camera person"
Thread stalls for several minutes.
MH Forum member: "Orbs!!!"
Skeptic: "Dust particles"
MH Forum member "Orbs!!!"
Skeptic: "Dust particles"
Still, it beats any alternative. Viz:
MH Forum member: "Orbs!!!"
Skeptic: "Dust particles"
MH Forum member "Orbs!!!"
Skeptic: "Dust particles"
Me: "Why don't you mount 2 night vision cameras side by side, a known distance apart, so you can triangulate the two images of the orb and work out the distance from the camera person"
Thread stalls for several minutes.
MH Forum member: "Orbs!!!"
Skeptic: "Dust particles"
MH Forum member "Orbs!!!"
Skeptic: "Dust particles"
Jim, //If you could stand up and defend your opinions and survive their scrutiny, and mine, I would be very interested and curious indeed...... I'd argue that I do have the relevant information, or at least some of it.//
You've asked me nothing, therefore you do not have the relevant information to scrutinise my claims. I disagree that conflict is a good thing - curiosity is a good thing, as is rational investigation, but here I see neither. And if you claim never to have argued that anyone is deluded, but insist that people believe the tricks their minds play on them, I can only conclude that you're implying delusion, so that's something you need to think about. Although you have left the readers here in no doubt whatsoever of your opinions, this is not a good argument. It's become tedious, repetitive, and unpleasant, and like the thread on ancient aliens which descended into similar nonsense, this falls far short of the interesting discussion it should have been. Therefore, since I'm all for interesting discussion, this holds no further interest for me.
I read somewhere (Christopher Hitchens possibly) that intelligence is not best judged by the knowledge that one has acquired, but by the questions one asks. Something else you might like to think about.
Hypognosis, you got it in one. ;o)
You've asked me nothing, therefore you do not have the relevant information to scrutinise my claims. I disagree that conflict is a good thing - curiosity is a good thing, as is rational investigation, but here I see neither. And if you claim never to have argued that anyone is deluded, but insist that people believe the tricks their minds play on them, I can only conclude that you're implying delusion, so that's something you need to think about. Although you have left the readers here in no doubt whatsoever of your opinions, this is not a good argument. It's become tedious, repetitive, and unpleasant, and like the thread on ancient aliens which descended into similar nonsense, this falls far short of the interesting discussion it should have been. Therefore, since I'm all for interesting discussion, this holds no further interest for me.
I read somewhere (Christopher Hitchens possibly) that intelligence is not best judged by the knowledge that one has acquired, but by the questions one asks. Something else you might like to think about.
Hypognosis, you got it in one. ;o)
It would be a wasted discussion indeed if the only person with anything to think about was me. How sad that you think I have nothing to give to this discussion. And if I'm repeating myself, it's because you've never adequately addressed some of my points, instead dismissing them out of hand. And again, continuing along personal lines, now insulting my intelligence by implication. Maybe you'll cry foul and say I'm putting words into your mouth again, but why else would you quote that and then say that it was something "I need to think about"?
I have asked you several questions. You've answered few or none of them, or at least the answers don't particularly advance things much. I have investigated rationally, by the standards and methods I've learned and will continue to learn over the next few years. So another false accusation there. They don't half pile up, do they?
The only person who's been rude or unpleasant, really, is you. Again and again and again. And then once more for good measure. Even more remarkably, continuing even when it's been pointed out to you several times. What, I wonder, ought I to conclude from that?
So far in this discussion, you have dismissed or questioned, or encouraged me to "think about" my curiosity, intelligence, qualifications, experience, rationality... but rarely have you tackled my points. Indeed, you even accepted that for most cases those points were correct or reasonable. So the question, which I did ask, but you dodged because I forgot to include the phrase "in most cases", was how have you accounted for or ruled out those same explanations in the cases when you think they do not apply? Or, at least, why do you believe they do not apply in other cases? That was among a number of other questions, and so far as I can read answers weren't forthcoming for those either. In future maybe you should answer such questions.
I have asked you several questions. You've answered few or none of them, or at least the answers don't particularly advance things much. I have investigated rationally, by the standards and methods I've learned and will continue to learn over the next few years. So another false accusation there. They don't half pile up, do they?
The only person who's been rude or unpleasant, really, is you. Again and again and again. And then once more for good measure. Even more remarkably, continuing even when it's been pointed out to you several times. What, I wonder, ought I to conclude from that?
So far in this discussion, you have dismissed or questioned, or encouraged me to "think about" my curiosity, intelligence, qualifications, experience, rationality... but rarely have you tackled my points. Indeed, you even accepted that for most cases those points were correct or reasonable. So the question, which I did ask, but you dodged because I forgot to include the phrase "in most cases", was how have you accounted for or ruled out those same explanations in the cases when you think they do not apply? Or, at least, why do you believe they do not apply in other cases? That was among a number of other questions, and so far as I can read answers weren't forthcoming for those either. In future maybe you should answer such questions.
Jim, you say you want to learn and I have encouraged you to think about your level of curiosity. That's all. The reason I quoted that is because throughout this thread you have continued to pontificate at great length, but in all of that not once have you asked the most important question of all - 'why?' You see, the difference between your argument and mine is that you THINK you know and I KNOW I don't.
//rarely have you tackled my points. Indeed, you even accepted that for most cases those points were correct or reasonable. //
That makes no sense. If for most cases I've accepted your points were correct or reasonable I must have tackled them.
//how have you accounted for or ruled out those same explanations in the cases when you think they do not apply? Or, at least, why do you believe they do not apply in other cases?
I don't dodge questions and I didn't realise I'd missed that one. If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out. I don't know what other questions you're talking about.
Pixie, conflict is not disagreement. Disagreement needn't be angry.
Zacs, ah .... how sweet. ;o)
Actually, your suggestion on the first page is the only one here that could go some way to offering an explanation.
Ed, I see no personal attack there, but it's surely a matter of people being unable to get into other people's heads. For example your post to me on another thread which read // If they directed their message to you you'd be unlikely to listen (or, I imagine, you might be grumpy about their presumption to be able to lecture you).// Followed by a very confusing //I won't forgive you for making this mistake :) // ... could have been misconstrued as a personal attack - but I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
//rarely have you tackled my points. Indeed, you even accepted that for most cases those points were correct or reasonable. //
That makes no sense. If for most cases I've accepted your points were correct or reasonable I must have tackled them.
//how have you accounted for or ruled out those same explanations in the cases when you think they do not apply? Or, at least, why do you believe they do not apply in other cases?
I don't dodge questions and I didn't realise I'd missed that one. If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out. I don't know what other questions you're talking about.
Pixie, conflict is not disagreement. Disagreement needn't be angry.
Zacs, ah .... how sweet. ;o)
Actually, your suggestion on the first page is the only one here that could go some way to offering an explanation.
Ed, I see no personal attack there, but it's surely a matter of people being unable to get into other people's heads. For example your post to me on another thread which read // If they directed their message to you you'd be unlikely to listen (or, I imagine, you might be grumpy about their presumption to be able to lecture you).// Followed by a very confusing //I won't forgive you for making this mistake :) // ... could have been misconstrued as a personal attack - but I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
Naomi,
in this and other threads I've followed there have been several times where jim answered a question and I was really looking forward to your answer (because your posts are usually good) but am then let down because you evade what he was getting at, or dismiss his premise. The topic does not move forward. Ultimately you declare that you've lost interest in the thread completely, which is frustrating to me because it means I can't learn anything new.
In the dowsing thread, I think, you referred to a much older thread where you had set out your personal experiences but you didn't care to write about that all over again. I haven't had the opportunity to read that myself yet and would appreciate a pointer to it.
Incidentally, would you want the old thread revived or discuss it in this one?
Also, did I misread or did you say that the one question jim hasn't asked (in this thread) is "so, what happened [to you]?", a few messages back?
in this and other threads I've followed there have been several times where jim answered a question and I was really looking forward to your answer (because your posts are usually good) but am then let down because you evade what he was getting at, or dismiss his premise. The topic does not move forward. Ultimately you declare that you've lost interest in the thread completely, which is frustrating to me because it means I can't learn anything new.
In the dowsing thread, I think, you referred to a much older thread where you had set out your personal experiences but you didn't care to write about that all over again. I haven't had the opportunity to read that myself yet and would appreciate a pointer to it.
Incidentally, would you want the old thread revived or discuss it in this one?
Also, did I misread or did you say that the one question jim hasn't asked (in this thread) is "so, what happened [to you]?", a few messages back?
Hypognosis, //in this and other threads I've followed there have been several times where jim answered a question and I was really looking forward to your answer (because your posts are usually good) but am then let down because you evade what he was getting at, or dismiss his premise.//
Oh really? I'm sorry. I didn't realise that. I never intentionally evade questions, so if you would be kind enough to point out anything you think I've missed and ought to address, I'd be happy to do so. Thanks for the compliment anyway. :o)
I've never had any personal experience of dowsing, so I don't know what you mean. If you want to ask a question that's unrelated to the current thread, perhaps it would be best to start afresh.
//Also, did I misread or did you say that the one question jim hasn't asked (in this thread) is "so, what happened [to you]?", a few messages back? //
I did say he hasn't asked 'what happened?' - and that would apply to anyone here who claims to have had experiences they can't account for.
Oh really? I'm sorry. I didn't realise that. I never intentionally evade questions, so if you would be kind enough to point out anything you think I've missed and ought to address, I'd be happy to do so. Thanks for the compliment anyway. :o)
I've never had any personal experience of dowsing, so I don't know what you mean. If you want to ask a question that's unrelated to the current thread, perhaps it would be best to start afresh.
//Also, did I misread or did you say that the one question jim hasn't asked (in this thread) is "so, what happened [to you]?", a few messages back? //
I did say he hasn't asked 'what happened?' - and that would apply to anyone here who claims to have had experiences they can't account for.
"Again, there is a question: if you don't believe my explanations to be the correct ones [at least some of the time], why?"
Is that not a question why? I don't know if you intentionally dodged it or not, but I certainly asked it and, aside from repeating my question: "I don't believe [your explanations] are correct in every instance," you didn't appear to answer it. It wasn't the first time I asked it either.
A dig at my intelligence, or some hint that I £need to "think about" my own intelligence, is certainly not an appropriate debating tactic. This is what Ed was getting at, and I'm surprised that you don't take the opportunity to retract it.
"The difference between [our positions] is that you THINK you know, and I KNOW I don't."
Interesting, and in my opinion slightly inaccurate, but not by too much. I think I PROBABLY know. My position is, and has always been, something along the lines of "here are the most likely explanations for all such incidents and stories; they have to be ruled out conclusively in order for me (and others) to accept the idea that there is something new". There is a level of doubt built into this. It's not much doubt, but I never claimed 100% certainty about these explanations. As always, they can be overturned, and I've asked you a few times now why you think they can be. Unfortunately because I skipped "in some cases" you focused on that, rather than the actual question.
So let me ask it again, then: Why do you believe that in some instances the usual explanations of unreliability of the human witness(es) do not apply? How did you rule them out?
On a point of language: attack and defence may imply aggression, but it's meant in a debating context. If I put forward a position I expect to have to defend it if there are gaps, or questions, or inconsistencies, and so on. But the attack is merely an intense scrutiny, rather than anything else. And this is the sort of conflict I am thinking of. Here are my views, challenge them -- attack them, even! Doing so benefits everybody, for if
Is that not a question why? I don't know if you intentionally dodged it or not, but I certainly asked it and, aside from repeating my question: "I don't believe [your explanations] are correct in every instance," you didn't appear to answer it. It wasn't the first time I asked it either.
A dig at my intelligence, or some hint that I £need to "think about" my own intelligence, is certainly not an appropriate debating tactic. This is what Ed was getting at, and I'm surprised that you don't take the opportunity to retract it.
"The difference between [our positions] is that you THINK you know, and I KNOW I don't."
Interesting, and in my opinion slightly inaccurate, but not by too much. I think I PROBABLY know. My position is, and has always been, something along the lines of "here are the most likely explanations for all such incidents and stories; they have to be ruled out conclusively in order for me (and others) to accept the idea that there is something new". There is a level of doubt built into this. It's not much doubt, but I never claimed 100% certainty about these explanations. As always, they can be overturned, and I've asked you a few times now why you think they can be. Unfortunately because I skipped "in some cases" you focused on that, rather than the actual question.
So let me ask it again, then: Why do you believe that in some instances the usual explanations of unreliability of the human witness(es) do not apply? How did you rule them out?
On a point of language: attack and defence may imply aggression, but it's meant in a debating context. If I put forward a position I expect to have to defend it if there are gaps, or questions, or inconsistencies, and so on. But the attack is merely an intense scrutiny, rather than anything else. And this is the sort of conflict I am thinking of. Here are my views, challenge them -- attack them, even! Doing so benefits everybody, for if
