A physicist explains ghosts in our digital reality

Ah got it.
You're relying heavily on ignoring what was written, e.g. "unsupervised while in the schoolyard on morning recess" AND inventing your own "data". The word "immediately" doesn't feature AT ALL in the account. And you're skipping the "consulting with each other" part.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where does it say they consulted with each other before telling the teachers what they saw?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see you have never known any children.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know that children don't scream and run and tell their teachers about something they made up.

 

Here's another compelling case of a ufo sighting:

"At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped crafthovering over Gate C-17.

The object was first spotted by a ramp employee who was pushing back United Airlines Flight 446, which was departing Chicago for Charlotte, North Carolina. The employee apprised Flight 446's crew of the object above their aircraft. It is believed that both the pilot and co-pilot also witnessed the object.

Several independent witnesses outside of the airport also saw the object. One described a "blatant" disc-shaped craft hovering over the airport which was "obviously not clouds." According to this witness, nearby observers gasped as the object shot through the clouds at high velocity, leaving a clear blue hole in the cloud layer.[1] The hole reportedly seemed to close itself shortly afterward.

According to the Chicago Tribune's Jon Hilkevitch, "The disc was visible for approximately two minutes and was seen by close to a dozen United Airlines employees, ranging from pilots to supervisors, who heard chatter on the radio and raced out to view it."[2][3] So far, no photographic evidence of the UFO has surfaced, although it was reported to Hilkevitch that one of the United Airlines pilots was in possession of a digital camera at the time of the sighting and may have photographed the event."==========https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting

 

A compelling case that I'm reasonably sure you've already posted in one of your locked threads.

 

What's wrong? Can't handle the evidence?

 

Here's a video of a flying saucer over Somerset England:

 

I don't consider hearsay evidence, and to be honest, I'd love it if there was.

Evidence of alien life, I mean, not just uncritical "I wanna believe" excerpts/evidence from crank/gutter press sites.

Edit: I'm not watching UFO vids btw. They fuck up my recommended video feed for a week or two. Not gonna wait that long to get that shit purged. It's bad enough that I still get bigfoot and ghost vids popping up because I watched some of the stuff you've linked, I don't want a damn trifecta of ghosts, bigfoot and UFO's.

 

So are you saying these events never happened? That a "crank site" just made them up?

 

Some, not all, but there's really no point trying to discuss this with you since you're cpt. Gullible and dead set on not applying critical thinking.

Enjoy your beliefs, just don't expect people to believe the same.

 

People can choose to believe whatever they want. They often do. I'm just putting out the information that will enable them to make an informed choice on the matter.

 

If you want people to believe then, sorry, you're not doing very well.

 

If I wasn't doing a good job, there'd be no attempts to lock my threads and infract me for posting this information. Obviously the information is threatening to many people's worldview here. Hence the attempts to censor it.

 

I think those things happens because, as others have pointed out, you basically jam your fingers in your ears when provided evidence contrary to your beliefs and shout "I can't hear you! Na na na na na na na na, Batman".

 

Is this selective reading?
I didn't actually say, nor did I imply, that they consulted each other BEFORE telling anyone.
But YOUR earlier post stated that "consultation" happened - thus, it was an opportunity to "get their story straight".

I do however, find it telling that you chose to focus on something I didn't say rather than show some intellectual integrity and address the fact that you're ignoring what your own source says and the fact that you invented part of the narrative.

Would anyone like to take a guess as to why that is?

 

Yeah.
Because of course no one locks threads that are boll*cks from start to finish.
We all know that only threads that make their case get locked...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I never said it happened. I said IF it happened, it could strengthen the kids' memory of the event and build their confidence in their own accounts.

 

Like everybody else in the world I argue for my beliefs. The fact that I don't bow to every attempt to refute them isn't a character flaw and certainly isn't unique to me. People only get frustrated because they can't offer a persuasive counterargument. But then that's not on me. That's on them..

 

That would be wrong.
What you actually wrote was "If anything, consulting with each other only strengthened their recall of the event".
The way this is written directly assumes that consultation happened and the "if" refers only to the outcome of that consultation.
Or is your command of English as flawed as your grasp on logic, reality and honesty?