If you feel you need to Carl, please by all means do.
Can you show me where I've done this Carl? I maintain that I use the same approach to this as I do in my own research, and that a large part of that will necessarily involve assessing whether an event is likely to have taken place in the way it's been reported, or whether it more likely results from misremembering, poor information, or in some cases, deliberate deceit. I see no reason not to apply this to Kersey. Are you suggesting perhaps that this isn't necessary, if you aren't please could you make it more explicit still why you choose to raise this point in your reply?
That's all fine, but first it'd be very persuasive if you could demonstrate the likelihood that these were time slip cases you were drawing patterns from. Especially worrying, is that you're not describing the information you're going to analyse as 'data which might support the idea of time slips', but as 'time slip data'. There's a leap of faith too far for some Carl. A failure to establish exactly where your data is coming from and what sort of phenomena generated is a fundamental error. All of which is a shame as I'm sure you've put a lot of work into this.
Carl, let's be honest you raised this first as a counter to my objections to relying on eye witness testimony, nothing more, and you repeated this point again in post 166. It's a very well used argument, and as I explained to you previously, where I mentioned the idea of false allegations, there is no plausible way to use eye witness testimony in a criminal context as support for it as being accepted as the sole source of evidence.
You left an important bit out there, that's that they experimented, discussed, proposed and rejected ideas. None of what we've achieved has been the result of acceptance without critical analysis.
No, my summing up acknowledges that nothing there is best explained by a time slip, and that the account which contains all of these details were prepared 30 years after the event, which I know means they're highly suspect. If you take it as being literal and accurate I can see though why it might appear very compelling. But as I've said before, you know (based on what you've said) enough to realise how unwise that would be.
Objectivity and scepticism should go together. As I've said before, it's not the ideas that the sceptics find sub standard it's the methodology.