◆ PARALLAX

I have seen several good-faith posts on the Aberfan premonition material and I think we can improve the conversation by fixing the denominator before sharpening the conclusion. I am not here to win an argument; I am here to ask what was observed, when, and by whom, with enough raw count to tell signal from selection effect. We can do that without calling everyone a liar and without calling everyone a prophet.

As a starting point, if there were N people in relevant contact with the events and M of them reported dreams or warnings before publication, then we need M over N and not just the dramatic subgroup that later surfaced in print. That one ratio is boring, but it is exactly what keeps us honest. I am willing to call a case extraordinary if it has documented contemporaneous notes, a date line, and no visible post hoc wording drift. I am prepared to do that for one case in this set, and no more, until we have that level of record.

If you are sharing sources, include date of report, place of publication, and whether the wording changed before and after public circulation. A copy of the local paper line, parish notes, or sworn statements is better than second-hand recollection. I am happy to read whatever is posted and run through the arithmetic here. This is not a dunk. A careful file is the only way any of this stays useful.