i brought up falling or being pushed overboard as a way of starting over from scratch and working our way towards what happened without making assumptions. one big assumption we've made is that these sightings are definite proof of ab. maybe they are, but thousands of people see ufos and elvis every year so maybe it's worthing taking a second look at what witnesses saw and most importantly, to me, when they reported what they saw. someone reporting three years later, after seeing two or three show about her, doesn't stand up very strongly for me.
that said, starting at the beginning and asking questions about assumptions is the smart way to go. two of my first questions were a) how do we know how far off shore the ship was when she went missing? and b) how do we know she could have swam to shore in any case (height of ship, etc)?
those seem like two really huge assumptions that everyone has taken as fact. the "there's no evidence" is a weak argument - she's been missing for sixteen years and none of the supposed evidence has found her, so it's a choice to either continue to rehash the exact same arguments or try to look at things a different way. i'm going to try to look at things from a different angle.
that said, starting at the beginning and asking questions about assumptions is the smart way to go. two of my first questions were a) how do we know how far off shore the ship was when she went missing? and b) how do we know she could have swam to shore in any case (height of ship, etc)?
those seem like two really huge assumptions that everyone has taken as fact. the "there's no evidence" is a weak argument - she's been missing for sixteen years and none of the supposed evidence has found her, so it's a choice to either continue to rehash the exact same arguments or try to look at things a different way. i'm going to try to look at things from a different angle.