Story Refinement

[Rick Deckard]

Isn't there a danger that when someone claiming to be having some sort of paranormal experience is then able to refine their story as they do the UFO/Paranormal 'celebrity' circuit?

I mean, they write a book, questions about inconsistencies are generated and then the 'wrinkles' in the story are 'ironed out' for their next 'best seller'.

Eventually, they will have all the 'angles' covered and an answer for every 'awkward' question.

Is that not a possibility?

Do you think it's possible to sit down, come up with a story and cover all the 'bases' - it might take several years but the 'payoff' could be worth it. I suppose it's no different from writing a novel or movie script.

Of course, if anything 'odd' ever happens to me, no-one will believe me now I've made this post...

...I could still get on coast-2-coast though. I just say a disinfo agent posted. D-oh!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I've never thought that a consistent story over a long time was compelling reason to buy into a case alone. I guess it sure beats an inconsistent one though.

Having said that, since there are so many hoaxers that do screw up the more they speak, maybe it is good evidence and I haven't quite come to terms with it.

Billy Meier, Ray Santilli, a lot of the Roswell people, Serpo, Biscardi, Ed Dames, Morten, Prophet (or proffit) Yaweh, Riley Martin, John Bradley Rutter/Dr. Reed, Jim mortellaro and many more, fall into the inconsistent story category. Or they say things that aren't consistent with what actually occurs.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Isn't there a danger that when someone claiming to be having some sort of paranormal experience is then able to refine their story as they do the UFO/Paranormal 'celebrity' circuit?

I mean, they write a book, questions about inconsistencies are generated and then the 'wrinkles' in the story are 'ironed out' for their next 'best seller'.

Eventually, they will have all the 'angles' covered and an answer for every 'awkward' question.

Is that not a possibility?

Generally speaking, memories grow fainter over time, not more precise and colorful. Cops, for example, often consider witness testimony taken at the scene more credible than testimony remembered after the event.

Additionally, the mind begins to "fill in the blanks" of uncertainty. Humans naturally try to place disconnected events into meaningful narratives, and attach all kinds of characters and motivations drawn from cultural, sociological, political, economic, etc., sources.

 

[CapnG]

Generally speaking, memories grow fainter over time, not more precise and colorful. Cops, for example, often consider witness testimony taken at the scene more credible than testimony remembered after the event.

That's not always the case though. There are documented incidents of wrongful arrests being made based on crime scene testimony that turned out to be distorted due to trauma.