gxm
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 22
Crap - He said after the bag was lifted off of it he seen the skull. If the bag was on it how could he have seen it under the log? Does leave doubt. I hate to say it. Now ducking the incoming tomatoes.
Easy. The bag could have been blown by the wind (or animals, or some other natural element) so that at times the skull was partially exposed, which would further confirm RK's testimony that he wasn't sure what it was (ie, "possibly a skull"). Or the bag could have always covered it but the shape (of a skull) was still somewhat recognizable. (Which would explain why he called it a "gray" object at one point.)
IMO, RK's testimony has been consistent that there was "something" about this particular area that struck him as questionable which is why he finally, after many rebuffs, decided to check it out on his own.
No doubt in my mind so far.