RainmanTime
Super Moderator
I agree 100%. I know you guys are the detail people, I'm more of a general terms guy.
I totally understand. However, my concerns come from using a generalist approach as providing a "means of cover" for wild-ass claims. It plays right into the hands of what a hoaxer wants... they want to peanut butter everything with generalizations and "it could be possibles". But the bottom line is that generalizations are NEVER useful when it comes to unsubstantiated claims. They only serve to muddy the water and provide hoaxers the coverage they deseperately need to keep their hoax afloat. While generalizations and statements of possibility that are divorced from assessments of probability are wonderful for water cooler chats, they are antithetical to claims that demand scientific support.
This is why I do not mean to be hard on you, personally, in this regard. I would strictly question anyone who promotes generalizations as somehow supporting a hoaxer's story. Just doing my part to keep a hoaxer from getting too much "free cover".
RMT