So.....I read Hunt for the SkinWalker and all I can remember was the schizophrenic nature of the book. It clearly was written by two people with different writing skill levels. A few chapters (I'm assuming were written by George) were well written and articulate. The others (written by...the other guy) were so poor in too-casual language, bad grammar, and crappy structure it seemed like it was written by my 10 year old.
The book itself was fairly interesting. If a third of the content was truth than all the evidence you could ever need was generated during it's conception. Of course, as has been pointed out time and again even within this thread; when it comes to cold hard proof we never see it. There's always some excuse as to why it cannot be generated.
Regarding what 'proof' most people require? Well 'proof' and 'evidence' are items with characteristics which allow the passing of knowledge from one human being to the next, often times in a physical form or via demonstration. For instance I can offer proof of the law of gravity by showing you how to drop a ball from a height. Statements of claims (verbal) are not considered proof of knowledge, though they can and often do pass belief from one human being to the next. Lazar supposedly possessed knowledge as he had observed (seen demonstrated) what he claimed, however when he communicated this information to George, he only communicated belief for George since Lazar had nothing which possessed characteristics (physically or via demonstration) of knowledge. George believes Lazar, but by his own admission he made no observations of Area 51/UFO connections himself and therefore has no "knowledge" of what Lazar claims goes on there.
Take it for what it is but you can either believe Lazar and Knapp or choose not to, but clearly no proof is offered and therefore no knowledge can be offered.
Peace.
Excellent explanation of the difference between knowledge & information Sandanfire, Kudos.
You've succinctly illustrated the primary problem, both with the so-called "paranormal" (I'm talking about the 10% of this that's the core "high strangeness
phenomena", not the other 90% of assorted things- misidentification, hoaxes, psychosis, military, etc. It's been my experience that "Sturgeon's Law" tends to
apply to most things in this current world) and people in general.
To paraphrase Patanjali's Yoga Sutras: "Words for which there are no objective realities are major sources of delusion." What most people call knowledge is
actually information, because they have no direct experience of it. People in general constantly say things to people as if they're truth, when all it is is hearsay.
You "know" where your keys are. You just can't put it " into form". Having information about sexual intercourse, versus actually having it, having "knowledge".
People also tend to always forget that when you say that you "believe" or "have faith" in something, what you're actually saying is is that you don't know.
There are some very interesting grey areas to all of this however. Someone could have knowledge, direct experience of something, but if their "belief system",
or "reality box" doesn't allow for it, they will discount it as false, or an "hallucination". They do this, while not being cognizant of the fact that the vast majority
of their belief system is composed of things, according to the very definition of the word belief, that they don't know.
Propagandists, Con men, intelligence agencies, organized religion leaders understand these points, and their various nuances, and utilize them to great effect in
getting people to do what they want.
From what I "know", I "believe" what Mr. Knapp has put forward regarding what he's discovered about Bob Lazar and his story, while always being cognizant of the
fact that I don't know the absolute truth of the matter, because I wasn't there.
90% of what most of us try to pass off as facts are actually heresay. We heard it from a parent, trusted teacher, perceived authority figure, and now "believe" it to
be "truth". It's ALL hearsay until YOU prove it to yourself. Don't ever let yourself be deluded into thinking otherwise. That's "true believers" and "skeptics" alike.
Just different polarities of belief, masquerading as truth, as knowledge.
Things that we swore, and taught in school as the gospel truth just 50 years ago, we now know to be wrong. And the current truths will also change, as we learn, and
get more information and see if it's actual knowledge.
Unless we were at Los Alamos, at the Skinwalker Ranch, at Area 51, it's all hearsay, all belief. For a believer or skeptic to say that they have the ultimate handle on
any of this phenomena is being more than a little disingenuous, both to others, and to yourselves.
But even once you have knowledge, what then? To others, you're just another believer, unless you can give proof, unless you can give them instructions to replicate
your results.
And even if you do that, so what? If your peers don't consider your results valid enough to join the general consensus on things, you're crap out of luck. The history of most fields consist of someone coming up with something new, and more often than not, having to wait until the standard bearers of the status quo died before their
(knowledge?information?) was accepted as part of the new status quo.
I'm saying all of this to say that, as far as we can tell from mostly anecdotal reports, we're looking at the movements of a core phenomena that can be solid one minute,
and gone the next, that can go in and out of our reality as they please, like opening and closing a door. It is letting us know, both subtly & explicitly, that our ideas of what's "real", what's "solid", what's "proof", what's "knowledge" may need to be expanded a bit.