(Q – Marceau: and so I wanted to know if it can also be considered as a change of gear, what.)
MB: so the example of Saint-Exupéry, what's interesting is that already, no one thought that he could have crashed in that place with his plane. So it was completely, not only was it unlikely, but it was even systematically refuted. It definitely wasn't that. There is a brave fisherman who finds his bracelet, and we still have to question him again, as if he had tampered with the thing or invented something or I don't know what, as if he was dishonest in some way. so, we doubt. In fact, what is it, it's doubt, we doubt, he finds the Saint-Exupéry bracelet, we're not talking about a bolt, a thing, no, the Saint-Exupéry bracelet, so the one he had on his wrist when he crashed, he finds it and we say Oh yeah but hey, no, it's not sure.
We found a plane of the same model as his, we said oh yeah but no, it's not sure anyway, so a guy had to go diving, take out a specific part, take down a number, a reference to let us say yeah, indeed, it’s his plane so it’s his bracelet.
Well, at the level of the golden owl, that's a bit what's happening. We have the impression that there are plenty of people who find the bracelet and say to themselves no, that can't be there, it's not possible. That’s really the feeling I have, there are people flirting with the great solution, that’s what’s happening.
But we can't, we can't demand to have 50 confirmations of something at any given time. We have to...that's a bit the meaning of the remark I made last night in writing for mblond, it's that at a given moment, you have to choose what! Not all hypotheses are admissible. No, I throw away, that I keep, that I throw away, that I keep.
MB: so the example of Saint-Exupéry, what's interesting is that already, no one thought that he could have crashed in that place with his plane. So it was completely, not only was it unlikely, but it was even systematically refuted. It definitely wasn't that. There is a brave fisherman who finds his bracelet, and we still have to question him again, as if he had tampered with the thing or invented something or I don't know what, as if he was dishonest in some way. so, we doubt. In fact, what is it, it's doubt, we doubt, he finds the Saint-Exupéry bracelet, we're not talking about a bolt, a thing, no, the Saint-Exupéry bracelet, so the one he had on his wrist when he crashed, he finds it and we say Oh yeah but hey, no, it's not sure.
We found a plane of the same model as his, we said oh yeah but no, it's not sure anyway, so a guy had to go diving, take out a specific part, take down a number, a reference to let us say yeah, indeed, it’s his plane so it’s his bracelet.
Well, at the level of the golden owl, that's a bit what's happening. We have the impression that there are plenty of people who find the bracelet and say to themselves no, that can't be there, it's not possible. That’s really the feeling I have, there are people flirting with the great solution, that’s what’s happening.
But we can't, we can't demand to have 50 confirmations of something at any given time. We have to...that's a bit the meaning of the remark I made last night in writing for mblond, it's that at a given moment, you have to choose what! Not all hypotheses are admissible. No, I throw away, that I keep, that I throw away, that I keep.