And why do people jump to the least likely explanation for things?
I, too, used to dismiss witness testimony as a useless form of data. I've formed a different opinion over time, and I think there are statistically significant anomalies when you can gather a large number of witnesses, even if there is no proposed mechanical explanation in our current paltry understanding of science. This case is pretty unreproducible so I doubt there will be reliable sample sizes in the near future, but nonetheless it's interesting.
Indeed.
If the brain has no activity how can memory be stored?
Playing into anecdotes like these ignores what we understand memory to be.