And I’ve studied it for over 45 years as well as having a close relative working around the craft.
And we both have our assumptions about a variety of puzzle pieces.
Occam’s razor; inductive logic; deductive logic . . . none of those remove assumptions. None of those are magic truth detectors.
And I’ve studied it for over 45 years as well as having a close relative working around the craft.
***Then produce the relative and let us see the evidence. That would move it from an inductive to a deductive pursuit if he has physical evidence. Keep in mind that the physical evidence of the Roswell site that was sent to Art Bell turned out to be almost EXACTLY what I predicted it would be.
And we both have our assumptions about a variety of puzzle pieces. Occam’s razor; inductive logic; deductive logic . . . none of those remove assumptions.
***Some things are better LOGIC tools than others. Some of them DO have the effect of removing assumptions. For instance, using an inductive approach about Dragnet’s land whale analogy, the whole thing would come crashing down if someone produced a land whale. There’s nothing wrong with having assumptions, but there is something wrong with HIDING assumptions. The same probably applies to having a bias as well, since it colors our assumptions and perspectives.
None of those are magic truth detectors.
*** Truth detectors? Did you have a truth detector strapped onto Marcel during your investigations? Do you have some sort of tool that works as a truth detector? Your own intuition is only as good as its ability to determine futures prices on Pork Bellies, and if you had that you’d be a very wealthy man.