Always interesting to see what people think and why. I'm always skeptical of "investigators" with an agenda... people who set out with a particular goal in mind. A scientific approach looks at observational data and from that tries to draw conclusions, while idealogues start with the conclusion and strive to make the data fit their belief. There are many known factors that could account for what is perceived as the paranormal -- deception, delusion, mass hysteria, sleep paralysis, misunderstanding of meteorological or astronomical events, poor lighting, misidentification of animals, and so on. And while these panelists seem to admit to the possibility of mundane explanations, clearly they are driven by a deep desire for the answers to be something more. Any line of investigation which relies exclusively upon individual eyewitness accounts and oral history is doomed to have its conclusions be highly suspect. Despite the best of intentions, the investigators are dependent upon the most imperfect of storage systems...human memory...a medium that is influenced by a myriad of flaws and desires. The topics discussed by these fellows are fun to think about, but for proof we'll need more concrete evidence than testimony and conjecture.
