A physicist explains ghosts in our digital reality

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Mar 31, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    MR, I get it. You've been beaten up so long in this subforum that that is your default position. I don't think most people set out to call you a liar initially. However, you've been attacked so much that now you are regularly disingenuous.

    Stop already. I've defended you and your right to post stories about "UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters'" in a forum titled "UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters'" since the beginning - I think you get too much flak for doing so. On the other hand, stop with the dishonesty. Dywyd (for example) will completely and utterly destroy fabrication and obfuscation - but he's a good guy and will acknowledge your right to believe in alternative explanations - so long as you don't insist on your way or the highway.

    When discussing extraordinary theories the burden is on you to supply extraordinary evidence, not the other way around. If you ever watch History's "Ancient Aliens" (which somehow I'm pretty damn sure you do) then you note that they always qualify - "Could it be that ____, as ancient astronaut theorists believe". You're as bad as your detractors in this sense - they refuse to acknowledge that we don't know beyond a shadow of doubt that extraterrestrials aren't visiting the Earth whereas you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they might not be visiting us. Your POV is actually more absurd than theirs because of the burden of proof required to substantiate your position.

    As I've made clear, I visit this subforum for the entertainment value - both in the subject matter and the consternation and apoplexy your posts incite in the other members. I enjoy a good flame war now and then...

    So please MR, just let it go - you can't possibly prove your case beyond a shadow of doubt - all you're doing is increasing the likelihood of this whole mess being shut down (to the delight of your detractors) and the loss of all your remaining support - including me.

    Choose your battles wisely...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,492
    Quote where I've lied or been disingenuous then. I'm accused of that often here based on no evidence at all. Surely you have some specific statements in mind?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Show where your statements about what Dw said stem from - where he has said the teachers, reporters, or students are lying...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    Nice post Randwolf, seriously...Just that one sentence.
    That isn't true. I'm saying, and I'm sure most others are saying [other than for MR] that all these sightings are, are UFOs, with the emphasis on the U...UNIDENTIFIED.
    We may well have been at one time or another, been visited by Aliens, but we as yet have no real convincing evidence.
    The kidnappings and anal probings and appearances generally in some out of the way places, or to children are not convincing evidence.
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Here we go:
    You were given specific examples that refuted an argument in this post, yet you repeated that same argument later on (more than once IIRC).
    Your persistent claim that "There was simply no time for them to "conspire" to make the same thing up" - which has been shown to be false.
    Your question here "Where does it say they consulted with each other before telling the teachers what they saw?" - which is questioning a claim that wasn't made.
    Your outright lie quoted here, and the response to it (never acknowledged).
    Repeated strawman question (one which had already been pointed out as nothing but a fabrication on your part) here.
    Deliberate misinterpretation of my post here.
    And another misinterpretation, but in the opposite direction, here.
    Misrepresentation here.
    Invention/ fabrication of data quoted here.
    And deliberate misrepresentation of what was written here and here. (Not on of which you have addressed, preferring to compound the dishonesty with further lies).
    Need I go on?

    Given that the majority of such accusations in this thread were accompanied by relevant quotes and/ or explication of where and how you were at fault - i.e. EVIDENCE - this is another lie on your part.

    So that you can continue to be a dishonest prick and ignore those too?
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Your thread on your claim that science has NEVER done anything for mankind is at best a great example of naivity, stupidity, and gullibility, and most probably lies intellectual dishonesty and total fabrication of what is obvious.

    That's just for starters.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,492
    Show in the articles where there was time for them to conspire between the time they saw "something" and the time they reported it to the teachers. You never showed that. Indeed, you deny they saw anything, and conspired in the meantime based in no evidence whatsoever.

    You yourself claimed they consulted with each before they reported it to the teachers. You claim they did this in playground, based on no evidence whatsoever.

    You never showed where they conspired after the event occurred. You only claim they conspired instead of seeing something based on no evidence whatsoever.

    You never did show evidence of them consulting before they ran to the school. Why is that irrelevant seeing your whole claim relies on this?

    This is where you became absurdly duplicitous, claiming not to have said that consulting went on while claiming there was a chance for it. Something you never established.

    You claimed there was a chance for consultation, which is claiming there was consultation. But again you do so based on no evidence.

    Wrong. That is a perfect representation of what you were claiming up to that point. Then you decide to tell me no event happened at all and that's when they were consulting. Another complete fabrication by you.

    Wrong. Between them seeing the beings and running screaming to tell the teachers there was little intervening time. This is based in sheer reaction speed. So it WAS immediate.

    Telling a falsehood IS a lie based on number 4 of the dictionary definition provided. No misrepresentation whatsoever,
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2015
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Excellent.
    You ask for examples, get given them, quote the post containing them, but fail address even one.
    It appears then that my speculation in the last sentence was true.
     
  12. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    And some more...
    "Actually, if this were overall a science forum, it'd be named Sci Forum, not Sci Forums." - WTF was that supposed to mean?
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-6#post-3320883

    "There's no such thing as "subfora rules" that apply to only a particular forum." - Wrong. Flat out incorrect assertion.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-6#post-3320934

    "So no scientific method there folks." -Totally disingenuous, the "Scientific Method" is still applicable - as always.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-6#post-3320939

    "Science has no role in deciding what is real art, which schools of philosophy are valid, what ethics we adopt in our lives, the nature of spiritual experiences, the metaphysical nature of reality, or whose presidential candidate is best." - Wrong again.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-7#post-3320949


    "Quote where I said any ufo was absolute proof aliens exist." Well. let's see...
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-7#post-3321076

    "No..the particular ufo examples I select defy mundane explanations. These are eliminated, leaving us with only otherworldly causes." Here, maybe?
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-8#post-3321089


    "That's what the dictionary said an alien is from. Outer space. Ergo, an interdimensional is not an alien." Disingenuous at best. Are you saying an interdimensional being is from our Earth? Really?
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-8#post-3321097

    "They are all terrified and run screaming into the school. What's the mundane explanation here?" I don't necessarily know yet - but I'm willing to admit that a mundane explanation might exist, are you?
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-8#post-3321099

    "LOL! You as much as admitted I was right. Moving on." Paddo hardly admitted you are right. Again, really?
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...ur-digital-reality.145537/page-8#post-3321102

    I made it half-way through this one thread before I got bored. One thread. Do you really want us to dredge through several threads and come up with hundreds of examples? Give it a rest.
    It's been a few years... but... careful who you tag-team MR.
     
    Kristoffer, paddoboy and Dywyddyr like this.
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,492
    Wow..you gave the impression of one feverishly keeping up with the debate from the sidelines. Now I see you are simply riding the old troll bandwagon to Scienceland. Give me time to expose your blatant mistakes and errors here. I have about 4 people I'm posting to now.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    Well, get to know some kids someday. Their behavior may start to make more sense to you.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    Exactly. The better job you do, and the better supported your claims, the more often your threads get locked.

    Try this as an experiment. Post that blacks are inherently evil subhumans who are trying to take over white America by having sex with white women. See how long before that gets locked. That would prove it was true!
     
  16. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Take all the time you like. I have a feeling it may be permanently limited though...

    "blatant mistakes and errors" indeed. Those are verbatim quotes with links - if mistakes and errors exist they are on your part.

    You should have heeded the "choose your battles carefully" advice...
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Ah, another lie. That was explained fully in this post, i.e. "My position is, and has been all along, that the time YOU (and other gullible folks) say was used in seeing the UFO/ talking to the alien was ACTUALLY used in making up the story".
    Plus I also pointed out that the "report to the teachers" has not been shown to be anything other than "We saw a UFO!".

    And another. See above quote from me, i.e. I consider it far more likely than your explanation.

    Also wrong. As shown by the previous quote. I claim that they had time to do so. This has not been refuted.

    I didn't use the word "conspire", but one of YOUR posts states that they "consulted" with each other after the initial report.

    Given that, again, I never made the claim that they consulted each other at that time (something I have pointed out as an error/ lie on your part more than once).

    I actually DID establish that they had time. What I didn't claim however was they actually did so. But it is definite possibility. Something you refuse to acknowledge.

    So if I claim that I have a chance of winning the lottery you see that as claim that I actually did so? Please learn how to think.

    And another lie. I didn't claim that consultation (prior to the initial report) took place.

    Followed by another lie: I didn't say that "no event took place" nor that "that's when they were consulting". As previously explained (see first 2 replies in this post).

    This is an assumption on your part - and, as previously noted, the "running and screaming" is ALSO in doubt. It can't have been "immediate" since they took time to find out there were no teachers available and then sought out the other person. We have no indicator whatsoever or the interval of time between the (claimed) sighting and the first report to an adult.

    Given that you mischaracterised what I wrote then "misrepresentation" is the perfect word for what you did.
    In this regard - what constitutes a lie - I note that you still haven't answered the question asked earlier: Please tell me how YOU account for the FACT that two different teachers gave two different versions of events, and the related comment: "Because it's a well-known fact that if someone says something that disagrees with another person's view of events one of them must be lying.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I mean, being mistaken, misremembering, that sort of thing couldn't EVER happen. Could it?"

    Deliberate falsehood HAS to be the only explanation".
    An accusation that someone has/ may have given an incorrect statement is not an automatic accusation of lying.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2015
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Crying victim again! Look at me! The whole world is out to get me!
    Like the quanta particle of EMR has zero mass MR, you have zero credibility.
     
  19. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Even those that have provided support. Never a more stereotypical example of false victimhood. Wow.
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,492
    The claim I was addressing is that this is a science forum. A forum meant exclusively for science. If that were so, then it'd be called Sci Forum. Instead it is Sci Forums, referring the 10 science forums it was originally set up with. Over the years 20 more nonscience forums were added, none of which require scientific treatment or evidence.

    There isn't. There's only the two sets of forum rules made up by Kittamaru in Religion and GMU, which aren't real rules in my book.

    Not according to Kittamaru's "rules". Read his rules for the Religion forum. He says that forum gets a pass on the scientific method.


    Sorry but this is simply a matter of self-evident fact. Science doesn't decide what is truth in these areas.


    That's not absolute proof aliens, as in ET's, exist. I was very clear that I was open to the interdimensional thesis as well.


    They're certainly not from outer space. They're from another dimension.


    I'll believe there's a mundane explanation when I'm given one that makes sense. So far none do.

    I wasn't even talking to Paddo at that point. Keep up with the dialogue.


     
  21. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    I'll choose this one to reply to first. Your post looks as if you have the comprehension of a two year old.
     
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    "Two" sort of negates : 'There's no such thing as "subfora rules"' Right?
     
  23. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Evasion and obfuscation. The question was "Are you saying an interdimensional being is from our Earth? Really?"

    Answer the question.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page