The issue I have with these explanations is that they require more contortions than I'm comfortable with. Multiple reports from multiple people with and without scopes are hardly an easy thing to explain.
There are things that people notice, empirical observations if you want to call them like this, that have a certain social stigma associated with them. And I feel that, precisely _because_ of this stigma, people rush to justifications and conclusions that fit our normal model. But how can we find out what they actually are if we try to wiggle things within our model, how can we tell if our model is somehow incomplete?
I will say that I am unconvinced by the explanations people have for these events. They feel forced, contorted and somehow touched by the spirit of the environment that gave birth to the explanations.
There are things that people notice, empirical observations if you want to call them like this, that have a certain social stigma associated with them. And I feel that, precisely _because_ of this stigma, people rush to justifications and conclusions that fit our normal model. But how can we find out what they actually are if we try to wiggle things within our model, how can we tell if our model is somehow incomplete?
I will say that I am unconvinced by the explanations people have for these events. They feel forced, contorted and somehow touched by the spirit of the environment that gave birth to the explanations.