Magical Realists Magical Reality

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Magical Realist, Mar 30, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Moving the goalposts now. So now you are arguing eyewitness accounts are only unreliable when they involve TRANSIENT details, and only with people who not trained to be observers. Anything else you wanna change in your position? Shouldn't you let the others know about this update?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    13,938
    Quit putting words in peoples mouths and inaccurately restating what they say. You know damn well the difference between a trained x-ray tech or doctor reading an x-ray and some random guy in the woods seeing a shadow and thinking "OOH BIGFOOT!"
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    X-rays are physical evidence.

    What physical evidence is there of bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs or Loch Ness monsters?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    16,602
    You mean of bigfoot, ghosts and ufos? Eyewitness accounts, photos, videos, audio recordings, fur, blood samples, footprint casts, etc. See the like 30 threads posted on this in his subforum.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2015
  8. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Plaster casts of doubtful integrity, apps that let you see the ghosts (even letting you position them how you want), the X-Files and a lake in Scotland.
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Most 'eyewitness' accounts of Bigfoot et al consist of a single person making the claim of a single observation. You never seem to get a group of people reporting the same observation.
     
  10. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    And I think we get to the heart of the problem.

    Magical Realist doesn't realize that eyewitness accounts are not physical evidence.

    Well that clears the whole issue up and explains why this train wreck has gone on for 23 pages.
     
    Trippy likes this.
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    All of which are the things in dispute.
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Don't let the door hit you in the ass...
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Not so. There are numerous "more than one" person eyewitness accounts. I've posted many of these in other threads. There are many others as well. Do some research...
     
  14. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    We don't have to believe implausible stories if there's no physical evidence to corroborate them.

    The idea that bigfoot exists is highly implausible.
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    MR considers eyewitness hearsay as physical evidence. He doesn't seem to know what the word means.
     
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    You Do understand that hearsay is not physical evidence right...?
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Eyewitness accounts are evidence period. It solves crimes, it convicts criminals, and it makes the evening newscast. Eyewitness accounts are strong evidence for the existence of bigfoot.
     
  18. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Wrong. Please refer to the linked studies from when you were banned.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    The studies that show distracted or lied to people don't see and remember things accurately? Right..we all knew that didn't we?
     
  20. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Fixed it for you.

    If eyewitness accounts were acceptable evidence for bigfoot, then bigfoot would be an accepted scientific fact.

    It's not. Can you guess why?
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Because among scientists, fringe research is considered taboo and a career killer.
     
  22. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Wrong. Try again.

    I'll give you a clue: Eyewitness accounts are NOT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

    The first person to prove Bigfoot really does exist will become an instant world famous celebrity with a Nobel Prize and go down in history along with people like Charles Darwin.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Nope..They'll be ridiculed, maligned, and lied about just like Dr. Melba Ketchum was for discovering Bigfoot DNA. Science doesn't change its ideas because it becomes convinced. The old guard simply dies off, replaced by younger, braver, more questioning minds.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page