HS,
So what are you looking for, am I supposed to say to myself "I can't provide physical evidence of my own paranormal experiences, so they didn't happen and I shouldn't talk about them"? What exactly does THAT accomplish? You cite "possible physical trace evidence" - the words POSSIBLE and TRACE speak volumes. It's not that I don't think there are legitimate cases - the Trindade case is one of the strongest around, IMO - and Blue Book contains lots of compelling cases, but hard physical evidence? Sorry, no dice there. Does someone on this planet have such evidence? I suspect so. Can I prove it? No. Can you? Can you prove otherwise? Go for it.
Right now, it seems to me that the world is becoming more polarized in every way, from basic human interactions to the most important issues of the day. You want me to prove everything as an absolute, which is just ridiculous. Chaos has some outer parameters, but it's called chaos for a reason: it's a dynamic system, it changes, it's part of a feedback loop. You believe in the absolute power of deductive reasoning, which is fine, but I submit that the Universe is far more capable of surprising you than you are of anticipating being surprised by it at any given moment. Part of human vanity is devotion to the limits of our own biology, as if your eyes are capable of seeing all the information in front of them. Reality check: your eyes see a tiny visible spectrum sliver of a huge electromagnetic realm, not the majority of the whole picture even by any scientific measure. Radar records tell us that something was in the air, but not a whole lot more.
So tell us all about what you KNOW and what deductive reasoning and facts were used to derive your knowledge.
Gene & I have created a way to talk about these topics, at our own expense, with no monetary gain, and we're happy to do that, but I'm getting a little pissed off at your accusations that I'm being less than logical or thoughtful. I'm not a religious fundamentalist, but I do indeed recognize that human knowledge and understanding only go so far, that's there's a lot of information that we lack regarding the nature of reality. Some of it seems to be beyond our ability to produce hard evidence - what am I supposed to do about that? Ignore stuff because our current science doesn't provide an explanation?
You state that Arigo is a fraud. I suppose that John G. Fuller was making up everything in his book about Arigo, "Surgeon of the Rusty Knife". Film clips, credible testimony, medical scrutiny, but I'm supposed to ignore all of this? My father was the director of film newsreels for a company in Caracas involved in producing the reels that ran at the local theaters. He did a segment debunking psychic surgeons, and interviewed a handful of Venezuelans that were cured by Arigo, which served as the counterpoint to the fakes. No, I don't have the segment - it was produced in 1975, a few years after Arigo died, the company that my father worked for seems to be out of business (it was owned by a fellow named Pedro Fuenmayor, who was on old friend of my Dad's), but I went on a couple of those shoots with my him, and those interviews sparked my own interest in Arigo, who is VERY well known throughout South America. Now, if you want to call me a liar, that I'm making this stuff up, how am I supposed to respond to that? The vast majority of so-called "psychic surgeons" are indeed bogus, but every indication is that Arigo was the real thing. Can I explain it? No. Does it appear to be true? Absolutely.
Did I expect chummy back-slapping? No, I didn't know what to expect, and Gene had to talk me into doing this, thank you very much. I guess if I can get even a couple of steps closer to understanding this mess, it was worth it. I'm not promoting a particular explanation or belief system, I don't have to believe in my experiences, they are part of my actual life, and if you've never lived through a paranormal experience, the corresponding confusion and frustration is hard to express adequately in words, or relate to. It shakes you to the core, and pumps some true humility into your worldview. It becomes crystal clear that we don't really know much about this Universe.
You complain endlessly about my objectivity - well, I have a news flash for you, I'm a human being, imperfect in my logic, flawed in my thinking, weak in some ways, strong in others. I know what I've experienced, I know others have experienced the same things, so I want to have discussions with folks interested in the topic, and open enough to understand that our instrumentation and scientific knowledge have boundaries. That's the fact, and it's not my doing. Apparently, I don't enjoy your absolute objectivity, but then again, I'm not a frikking object, I'm a subject, a person. I understand the role of humility in the process of life. I don't have the answers, I have questions, and you attack me for this stance. What am I supposed to say? You're a better person, more logical, thoughtful, objective? And how much more of an understanding of these topics has this superiority brought you? I reserve the right to be wrong at any given time. Do you?
If you can do better, go for it, start your own show, create your own forum. Nothing is stopping you.
dB
