Well, at least I now know what you're going on when you lend credibility to one eyewitness account over another - why modern eyewitness accounts of appearances by Jesus don't interest you, I don't know. Not every account of Jesus' supposed appearance appears in the Bible. Paul's two accounts of his claimed encounter with Christ, and the account that appear in Luke, are corroborated by outside, extra-Biblical sources (Clement, for example). Folks around the world claim personal encounters with Christ, Mary, et al - these encounters sometimes have multiple witnesses (Fatima, anyone?). Because you've discounted the validity of Christianity, none of these count? Who's being close-minded and biased now?
I'd suggest strongly that contactees have political motivations as strong as anything Christianity has to offer, and that's really exemplified by your answer. Let's take a look at Christian cosmogony:
Christian: The world is in terrible shape (sin), and needs to be saved.
Skeptic: What will save it?
Christian: Jesus. He came to visit us, left, but is coming again. He makes appearances even today. If we only hear and understand his message, salvation is ours.
Skeptic: What evidence do you have for this?
Christian: Look at the Bible. Look at the modern eyewitnesses. Listen to my story.
Skeptic: What about hard evidence?
Christian: (Begins list of excuses.)
How about contactee cosmogony?
Contactee: The world is in terrible shape (global warming, the environment, nuclear proliferation, war - pick your gripe), and needs to be saved.
Skeptic: What will save it?
Contactee: Aliens (you can also input the supposed "spiritual nature of UFOs" nonsense we hear so often). They probably visited us in the past, left, but have been coming back regularly, and will come again.
Skeptic: What evidence do you have for this?
Contactee: Look at UFO history. Look at all the modern UFO reports. Listen to my story.
Skeptic: What about hard evidence?
Contactee: (Begins list of excuses.)
Where's the difference, Mr. Biedny?
You've clearly stated that you do, indeed, prefer one account over another because you trust your senses to tell you the difference between prevarication and the truth. That's hunch, not reason, and isn't logical at all. The very fact that you are friends with Mr. Ritzmann should give you pause when considering his account. Furthermore, the fact that you personally observed the reactions of Mr. Ritzmann, who is the only claimant to the phenomena, means that two minds capable of misinterpretation, error and misperception are involved, not just one. That's why studies use blinds, double-blinds, and even triple-blinds, and why these studies rely on hard, measurable, testable data and not only on testimony. Folks who have a dog in the fight aren't objective. I submit, too, that your natural (and understandable) biases against Christianity preclude you from seeing the metaphor objectively.
I guess what I'm saying is that your response illustrates precisely what I've been trying to get across all along. Supernaturalism isn't reasonable, does not depend on logic, cannot use the scientific method and depends purely on faith, since it has nothing to do with corroborating evidence. In short, supernaturalists will never find any truth, because they refuse to use the tools available to find truth in the first place.
I see no difference between the faith of a Christian believer and the faith of a contactee believer. Hell, when an idiot in a New Mexico town sees Jesus' image appear on a cookie sheet, at least he presents a cookie sheet for inspection. These endless contactee and supernatural eyewitness stories don't give us anything at all. Supernaturalists and Christians had information transmitted to them about experiences that cannot be tested, cannot be verified and have no supporting evidence to buttress them (cookie sheets with Jesus' mug excluded). How do you find any truth under those circumstances?
