Marduk,
First, your experiences are your experiences. I see no need, or feel no need to question them. You can interpret them as you see fit... let's face it, you saw it. Not me.
Flashbulb Memory. You bring up a couple of interesting points here. First, science does know that the immediate recall of a flashbulb memory is quite good. Better even than a "regular" memory. The problem with Flashbulb Memories is their long term recall. Unfortuantely science also knows that over time, those flashbulb memories change. And if they change, they aren't as accurate as regular memories.
And that was Mr. Mamer's point. I seem to remember him asking the hosts, when Mr. Cooper came forward with his story. If enough time had passed... then there is a chance that the memory changed.
I should also note here that Mr. Mamer only seemed to be offering it as a possibility in the Cooper case, not a certainty.
The other interesting point, is this is an area where I did not really agree with Mr. Mamer. I personally think that his citing of wikipedia is a little weak. By no means would I accept anything there as fact without some independant corroboration.
"2. We should not accept experiential anomalous evidence that doesn't fit theory. Do I even need to explain this one?"
I'm not sure he said that, but I will take your word for it. And yes you do need to explain this one.
"3. I don't think he understands
Occam's razor as well as he think he does. Also known as the theory of parsimony, it simply states that
everything else being equal the simplest answer is probably the right one."
I'm sorry, but that is only true as far as the "simple" part. It is an oversimplification of Occams Razor (the same way that it is often said that the First Law of Thermodynamics is that Matter and Energy can not be created or destroyed.). Both oversimplifications lead to errors.
Occam's Razor, and the theory or parsimony for that matter, it actually that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
Assuming that a UFO is alien in nature includes far more assumptions than a terrestrial assumption.
"is it reasonable to assume that 5-10K people are just flat out lying?
All the photographic evidence are hoaxes?"
I wouldn't suggest such a thing, and neither did Mr. Mamer.
"We can't explain gravity -- does that mean that it doesn't exist?"
I think that is a great example. We do not know nearly enough about gravity. But, what we do claim to know, is demonstrable and experiencable (is that a word?) by ALL. What we know is repeatable.
You dont have to take my word for it. Gravity is real, you can test it yourself, and repeat any experience I claim to have had with gravity.
That is why it is Science.