Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(May 17, 2025 12:05 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I have refuted them all, in the legal sense of supplying ample reasonable doubt.

Right...so what was the explanation for the old lady ghost? How did she get into the house and into the back room? No evidence? Then it isn't refuted.

And why does the running boy make no sound on the wooden floor? He's really behind the wall? Evidence? No? Then it isn't refuted.

Wow, you don't even know what reasonable doubt means. How ignorant can you be on such a wide range of topics?
Reasonable doubt doesn't require an alternative explanation:

"Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases" - wiki

So you're always trying to use a "preponderance of evidence" (hence the kettle logic) where I'm using the higher standard of reasonable doubt.

"This means the evidence must leave little actual doubt in the mind of the judge or jury that..." (wiki) [...a ghost, UFO, etc. actually exists.]

In the case of your woo, I (and Zen and others) have thoroughly demonstrated that such doubts are numerous, as in way more than a "little actual doubt."

Quote:This isn't a courtroom moron. It's basic science. Show me the evidence they were faked or mistaken or admit they are unrefuted.

And right there you fucked up again. All of your videos, pictures, or stories meet the absolute weakest forms of evidence, solely observational and anecdotal.

The scientific evidence definition rests on the premise that it is concrete, measurable, reproducible, and consistent with theoretical expectations. - https://sciencepod.net/scientific-evidence/

Your videos, pictures, and stories are not concrete or measurable (they are facsimiles or personals accounts after the fact) or reproducible (speaks for itself).

Quote:"Debunk is to prove something as false. You spend time giving evidence why something is not true.

Example: We debunked the flat earth theory by measuring the curvature of the earth."

To debunk something is to take the bunk out of it—that bunk being “nonsense.” (Bunk is short for the synonymous bunkum, which has political origins.) Debunk has been in use since at least the 1920s, and it contrasts with synonyms like disprove and rebut by suggesting that something is not merely untrue but is also a sham—a trick meant to deceive.- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk

refute : to deny the truth or accuracy of - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

I have thoroughly taken the "nonsense"(bunk) out of your claims.
I have repeatedly denied the truth of your claims.

Can't get more debunked and refuted than that.

And if you try to run and hide under the skirt of "disproven," there is no such thing as "proof" in science. "Proof" only exists in mathematics and court. And then we're right back to reasonable doubt... which I (and others) have supplied in spades.

Quote:

Quote:Exactly. You ALWAYS presume they are legit. ALWAYS.

Well duh! Of course I do. That's why I picked them. Because they are legit. I'm certainly not going to post any I feel are questionable.

But you obviously have no criteria for determining that other than your quasi-religious fervor and your wishful thinking.

Quote:Wow, you don't even know what reasonable doubt means. How ignorant can you be on such a wide range of topics?
Reasonable doubt doesn't require an alternative explanation:
"Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases" - wiki

You're not even applying the term to the right thing. Reasonable doubt only pertains to a criminal conviction, not to evidence. At no time is any video evidence subjected to the standard of proof of reasonable doubt. And it certainly doesn't apply to videos proving the existence of paranormal beings. The videos of such are in fact extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary. Unless proven to be faked, which you haven't with any of the videos I've posted, they constitute strong and reliable evidence.

Quote:And right there you fucked up again. All of your videos, pictures, or stories meet the absolute weakest forms of evidence, solely observational and anecdotal.

Really? Let's check on that:

"In today’s digital age, video evidence has become a pivotal element in modern legal practices. The growing importance of video footage in legal cases cannot be overstated, as it offers a compelling and often irrefutable account of events that can significantly influence the outcome of a trial. With advancements in technology, video recording has become more accessible and prevalent in our everyday lives. From surveillance cameras and dashcams to smartphones, the ability to capture video is now in the hands of virtually everyone, leading to an increase in the use of video evidence in both civil and criminal cases...

Security cameras are a staple in businesses, homes, and various other properties, capturing continuous footage that can be vital in both civil and criminal cases. In businesses, security camera footage can document everything from theft and vandalism to workplace incidents and customer interactions. In homes, these cameras can capture trespassing, break-ins, and other criminal activities. Security camera footage is often used in legal cases to establish facts, provide visual proof of events, and support or contradict the testimony of those involved."---- https://www.markolaw.com/post/the-role-o...-practices

If videos can be used to identify criminals, then why can't they be used to identify ghosts?

Quote:Your videos, pictures, and stories are not concrete or measurable (they are facsimiles or personals accounts after the fact) or reproducible (speaks for itself).

And yet scientists rely on videos and photos all the time like the ones taken by the rover on Mars, the moon, the space station, and the Hubble telescope. Like videos taken of animal species being studied in the wild and under the sea. Like videos of weather phenomena such as tornadoes and hurricanes and lightning and satellite atmospheric surveys. Like videos of experiments done in labs involving high speed recorded motion of projectiles and collisions and explosive reactions. Need I go on? This shows the high reliability of videos used in scientific exploration. Why should they be any less reliable when scientifically investigating anomalous phenomena?

Quote:I have thoroughly taken the "nonsense"(bunk) out of your claims.
I have repeatedly denied the truth of your claims.
Can't get more debunked and refuted than that.

You can't even give me an explanation for the old lady ghost caught on camera. So how did you refute anything about it? And neither have you refuted anything about the boy ghost. Just making up shit about him maybe being behind a wall doesn't refute anything. Refuting would be actually catching the boy on video or a statement by the videographer later that he hoaxed it. But that hasn't happened. So the video remains unrefuted. Number 1 rule in debating: "You have to support all your claims with evidence otherwise they are worth nothing."

Quote:But you obviously have no criteria for determining that other than your quasi-religious fervor and your wishful thinking.

Just 20 years of experience looking at videos of many real and well as many faked ghosts. Yeah..what would I know? lol

I get it. Magical realism. Staying in character. Stories of ordinary folks experiencing extraordinary events (i e supernatural weirdness). Ya MR screwed up a few times when the supernatural proved ordinary. Has to defend the paranormal or this chosen literary genre of his falls apart. Skeptics become public enemy#1. His defence is about as weak as you can get but that’s all he needs to do to stay in character. He’s playing a game unbeknownst to most believers of his bunk who are the big losers. He doesn’t care if believers are affected one way or another because it’s all about him. Selfish little brat.

If anything, a magical realist should know the difference between real and fantasy.

(May 17, 2025 04:03 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]You're not even applying the term to the right thing. Reasonable doubt only pertains to a criminal conviction, not to evidence. At no time is any video evidence subjected to the standard of proof of reasonable doubt. And it certainly doesn't apply to videos proving the existence of paranormal beings. The videos of such are in fact extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary. Unless proven to be faked, which you haven't with any of the videos I've posted, they constitute strong and reliable evidence.

Moron child, a criminal conviction occurs as a result of the evidence. The presence or lack of reasonable doubt occurs because of the evidence. At no time is video evidence alone deemed strong evidence, period. It is only good evidence if it is consistent with other evidence, like independently identifying and incriminating the perpetrator, recording a confession, etc.. Much like scientific evidence, it must concur with other evidence... of a different, stronger type... and of the same event. Kettle logic of multiple unrelated events are why courts do not allow criminal history to be introduced, as it would prejudice the jury. You've essentially imbibed so much of this nonsense that you've prejudiced yourself, like a juror watching the news coverage of a trial.. which is justifiably forbidden.

As I've told you for years now, you are clueless about what constitutes strong or reliable evidence. Reliability is a result of repeatability and reproducibility, which you cannot even pretend to claim (and kettle logic is not a valid argument). Extraordinary video is commonplace. It's in every Hollywood CGI extravaganza. But that doesn't mean Iron Man actually exists. 9_9

Quote:Really? Let's check on that:

"In today’s digital age, video evidence has become a pivotal element in modern legal practices. The growing importance of video footage in legal cases cannot be overstated, as it offers a compelling and often irrefutable account of events that can significantly influence the outcome of a trial. ...

If videos can be used to identify criminals, then why can't they be used to identify ghosts?

How do you identify criminals from a video without some other evidence of who they are? You do realize that if you only have a face, you have to have something to compare it to, right? Notice where they say "a pivotal element," and not the entirety of the evidence. Here, your videos, pictures, and stories are your ONLY evidence. Not just an ELEMENT. That means you have ZERO supporting evidence. Video in a criminal trial is ONLY pivotal if it allows you to identify and incriminate a known person.

I'd be shocked if you could even grasp this very simple fact.

Quote:And yet scientists rely on videos and photos all the time like the ones taken by the rover on Mars, the moon, the space station, and the Hubble telescope. Like videos taken of animal species being studied in the wild and under the sea. Like videos of weather phenomena such as tornadoes and hurricanes and lightning and satellite atmospheric surveys. Like videos of experiments done in labs involving high speed recorded motion of projectiles and collisions and explosive reactions. Need I go on? This shows the high reliability of videos used in scientific exploration. Why should they be any less reliable when scientifically investigating anomalous phenomena?

Never solely videos and photos. Otherwise we would have never had the capability to land a rover on Mars (which also sent back measurements and data), etc.. Every example you give is only scientifically useful when coupled with other evidence. That other evidence is how we know, for a fact, what we are dealing with. You have never presented any such other evidence to support yours... which makes it scientifically very weak.

Again, as if you could even comprehend that simple fact.

Quote:You can't even give me an explanation for the old lady ghost caught on camera. So how did you refute anything about it? And neither have you refuted anything about the boy ghost. Just making up shit about him maybe being behind a wall doesn't refute anything. Refuting would be actually catching the boy on video or a statement by the videographer later that he hoaxed it. But that hasn't happened. So the video remains unrefuted. Number 1 rule in debating: "You have to support all your claims with evidence otherwise they are worth nothing."

Comprehend the definitions, moron.
I gave you plenty of plausible explanations. Just because you don't like them (or are in denial) doesn't mean they weren't given.
I can't give you what has been intentionally hidden or edited out of your videos. Unless you can give me complete, raw footage, you're just a gullible sucker.
You haven't supported ANY of your claims. You just say "seeing is believing" with a lot of dubious and anecdotal commentary. The weakest forms of evidence.

Quote:Just 20 years of experience looking at videos of many real and well as many faked ghosts. Yeah..what would I know? lol

20 years of biasing your opinions. It's the same reason that porn is bad for you. Once you've consumed enough, it biases your beliefs on sex. Same goes for ghost, UFO, etc. content and your beliefs in woo. Makes you believe that's what sex (reality) is really like.

Quote:Moron child, a criminal conviction occurs as a result of the evidence. The presence or lack of reasonable doubt occurs because of the evidence. At no time is video evidence alone deemed strong evidence, period.

The reasonable doubt standard is only applied to a jury's decision about a defendant's guilt. It doesn't involve the reliability of video evidence, which is always compelling and often irrefutable, as in cases where someone is filmed robbing a store or murdering someone or vandalism or abducting a child. Nobody ever says "well there is reasonable doubt the video is fake so we can't use it." Only a moron like you would even claim such a thing. Often video is the one clincher in a case, establishing beyond a doubt that someone committed a crime. And if it can be that decisive, then it can be just as decisive in proving the existence of ghosts. The three videos posted in this thread do exactly that. There is simply no grounds for doubting them.

Quote:As I've told you for years now, you are clueless about what constitutes strong or reliable evidence. Reliability is a result of repeatability and reproducibility,

You're mixing apples and oranges. You are now talking about videos used in scientific investigations, which never require reproduction. Nobody says, "well that video we have of lightning striking the plane is unreliable because we can''t reproduce it." Or "that trailcam of wolves attacking a bear isn't repeatable so we can't use it." Video is de facto reliable because it is always a 100 % accurate recording of the events that happened in front of it. To deny this is simply disingenuous.

Quote:Never solely videos and photos. Otherwise we would have never had the capability to land a rover on Mars (which also sent back measurements and data), etc.. Every example you give is only scientifically useful when coupled with other evidence.

No it isn't. Mars Rover footage of a dust storm is not invalid because we lack additional evidence of the dust storm. Footage of the tsunami destroying a Japanese village doesn't rely on other evidence to prove it happened. Video of Mt. St. Helens erupting is sufficient in itself to prove it erupted. Telescope video of supernova doesn't require more evidence to prove it happened. In all such cases and many others the video is entirely sufficient to document an event and is studied to learn about the details of what occurred. And if videos can be relied on scientifically for natural phenomena, then then can also be relied on for anomalous phenomena. Which in fact they are, as with videos of ghost lights like the Hessdalen lights and the Brown Mountain lights, uaps, earthquake lightning, rogue waves, and ball lightning.

Quote:I gave you plenty of plausible explanations. Just because you don't like them (or are in denial) doesn't mean they weren't given.

No you didn't. You backed off on the senile intruder canard because it was so silly and I showed such would have been caught on the video going into the backroom. And you gave no evidence whatsoever for the boy ghost being behind a wall. Again, just making up bullshit isn't debunking anything. All claims have to be supported with actual evidence.

Quote:20 years of biasing your opinions. It's the same reason that porn is bad for you. Once you've consumed enough, it biases your beliefs on sex. Same goes for ghost, UFO, etc. content and your beliefs in woo. Makes you believe that's what sex (reality) is really like.

Yes...after 20 years of watching porn I can confidently proclaim the existence of porn stars. Ain't videos great? lol

(May 17, 2025 09:04 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Moron child, a criminal conviction occurs as a result of the evidence. The presence or lack of reasonable doubt occurs because of the evidence. At no time is video evidence alone deemed strong evidence, period.

The reasonable doubt standard is only applied to a jury's decision about a defendant's guilt. It doesn't involve the reliability of video evidence, which is always compelling and often irrefutable, as in cases where someone is filmed robbing a store or murdering someone or vandalism or abducting a child. Nobody ever says "well there is reasonable doubt the video is fake so we can't use it." Only a moron like you would even claim such a thing. Often video is the one clincher in a case, establishing beyond a doubt that someone committed a crime. And if it can be that decisive, then it can be just as decisive in proving the existence of ghosts. The three videos posted in this thread do exactly that. There is simply no grounds for doubting them.

Completely false. In any video, the prosecution must establish that it is, indeed, the defendant in the video, especially if the face is obscured by a mask, angle of the camera, or video quality. To do that, the prosecution must have other corroborating evidence. For example, a person in the video could look just like the defendant, but if the defendant has a rock-solid alibi, they couldn't possibly have been in two places at once. These are the elements your videos lack. We have zero corroborating evidence to identify what you claim are ghosts (the "who" or "what" is in the video). Since you can't, there is ample reasonable doubt in your claims, just as there would be in a prosecutor's claim of guilt.

Quote:

Quote:As I've told you for years now, you are clueless about what constitutes strong or reliable evidence. Reliability is a result of repeatability and reproducibility,

You're mixing apples and oranges. You are now talking about videos used in scientific investigations, which never require reproduction. Nobody says, "well that video we have of lightning striking the plane is unreliable because we can''t reproduce it." Or "that trailcam of wolves attacking a bear isn't repeatable so we can't use it." Video is de facto reliable because it is always a 100 % accurate recording of the events that happened in front of it. To deny this is simply disingenuous.

No, like I said, you made the mistake of arguing scientific evidence. Science is not done by simply "seeing is believing." Again, as in court, you have to have corroborating evidence. You have to already know what lightning is and how is can interact with a plane, or what wolves and bears are. A video, alone, is no better than Hollywood CGI for science... unless we know more about what the video depicts (and we have no such scientific corroborating evidence for ghosts).

We do have reproducibility in your examples, because we understand why lightning strikes planes and that we can set up instruments in planes to makes measurements next time it happens. We only set up a trail cam because we know enough about wildlife to know that they will come through that area again.

The only apples and oranges comparison here is you equating well-known things like lightning, planes, and animals with the completely unknown.

Quote:

Quote:Never solely videos and photos. Otherwise we would have never had the capability to land a rover on Mars (which also sent back measurements and data), etc.. Every example you give is only scientifically useful when coupled with other evidence.

No it isn't. Mars Rover footage of a dust storm is not invalid because we lack additional evidence of the dust storm. Footage of the tsunami destroying a Japanese village doesn't rely on other evidence to prove it happened. Video of Mt. St. Helens erupting is sufficient in itself to prove it erupted. Telescope video of supernova doesn't require more evidence to prove it happened. In all such cases and many others the video is entirely sufficient to document an event and is studied to learn about the details of what occurred. And if videos can be relied on scientifically for natural phenomena, then then can also be relied on for anomalous phenomena. Which in fact they are, as with videos of ghost lights like the Hessdalen lights and the Brown Mountain lights, uaps, earthquake lightning, rogue waves, and ball lightning.

Hollywood, moron. I've seen umpteen tsunamis and alien atmospheres. But unless there is real-world damage or data to corroborate them, the videos mean absolutely nothing. See how that works? Video and pictures are NEVER sufficient to establish the reality. Otherwise we'd all believe superheros, hobbits, and magic.

But... maybe you do. You're so fucking gullible.

Quote:

Quote:I gave you plenty of plausible explanations. Just because you don't like them (or are in denial) doesn't mean they weren't given.

No you didn't. You backed off on the senile intruder canard because it was so silly and I showed such would have been caught on the video going into the backroom. And you gave no evidence whatsoever for the boy ghost being behind a wall. Again, just making up bullshit isn't debunking anything. All claims have to be supported with actual evidence.

I didn't back off anything. If you could read worth a damn, you'd know I never made a positive assertion.
Again, if someone is hiding and the person with the camera intentionally avoids that obvious hiding spot or edits the video, the lack of evidence is the fault of your source. Where is the raw footage?

As demonstrated above, all videos require corroborating evidence... and yours never have any. Since the null hypothesis is the default assumption, the onus is on you provide the evidence of your claims... which you never do.

Quote:

Quote:20 years of biasing your opinions. It's the same reason that porn is bad for you. Once you've consumed enough, it biases your beliefs on sex. Same goes for ghost, UFO, etc. content and your beliefs in woo. Makes you believe that's what sex (reality) is really like.

Yes...after 20 years of watching porn I can confidently proclaim the existence of porn stars. Ain't videos great? lol

I knew that analogy would really resonate with you.

I think if we could see the entire hallway where this “figure” disappears into, it would seem like the couple went a little more out of their way to not hide anything. They seem likable enough, but you can like someone’s personality and not find their story to be credible. What makes you believe MR, that it can’t be anything but a ghost?

Quote:Completely false. In any video, the prosecution must establish that it is, indeed, the defendant in the video, especially if the face is obscured by a mask, angle of the camera, or video quality. To do that, the prosecution must have other corroborating evidence.

That level of identification is not required to establish the existence or involvement of a person or being. If the case was of whether a person jumped off a bridge or was pushed, the mere video of someone doing that would irrefutably prove that. If a child is lost, and we have video of someone abducting them, that is enough to prove the existence of the abductor. If a trailcam shows a cougar attacking a calf, we are satisfied that it has proven that there was a cougar there doing that without demanding that it prove some particular cougar did it. Likewise we only need to prove the existence and involvement of A ghost, and not a particular ghost, to meet the standard of reliable evidence. Hence the total reliability of the videos.

Quote:Science is not done by simply "seeing is believing." Again, as in court, you have to have corroborating evidence. You have to already know what lightning is and how is can interact with a plane, or what wolves and bears are. A video, alone, is no better than Hollywood CGI for science... unless we know more about what the video depicts (and we have no such scientific corroborating evidence for ghosts).

Totally false. Even if we had no idea of what lightning is, the video alone of it striking the plane would be totally sufficient to establish its existence. Even if we had never seen a wolf before, the video alone would be totally adequate proof of its existence. This reliability of video to prove how events occurred and what caused them is simply unimpeachable. And while we may not know exactly what a ghost is, we have acquired enough data on them over the years to know what they look like and the way they behave. These 3 videos are totally in line with that data and are supported by it. The fact that they are ghostlike and captured doing ghostlike things eliminates them being actual living persons.

Quote:We do have reproducibility in your examples, because we understand why lightning strikes planes and that we can set up instruments in planes to makes measurements next time it happens. We only set up a trail cam because we know enough about wildlife to know that they will come through that area again.

Then the fact that ghosts are captured repeatedly on CCTV's and security cams and cellphones all over the world qualifies equally as reproduced evidence. It's how we know they exist. Just like we know rogue waves exist, and ball lightning, and the giant squid, and other anomalous phenomena.

Quote:Hollywood, moron. I've seen umpteen tsunamis and alien atmospheres. But unless there is real-world damage or data to corroborate them, the videos mean absolutely nothing.

Nope..we have video of meteorites falling from the sky even though we never track down where they landed. We have video of sunspots on the sun, even though we have nothing to corroborate that. We have video of never before seen species of sea life in the deepest parts of the ocean, without any data to back that up. We have video of waterspouts where no trace of them is found afterwards. We have video of red sprites shooting up from thunderclouds, without any vestige of them ever happening. Shall I go on? Video of even transient and innocuous phenomenon/beings is accepted as irrefutable evidence of their existence. Just as these 3 videos of paranormal phenomena are. But then you know this. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to deny it.

Quote:I didn't back off anything. If you could read worth a damn, you'd know I never made a positive assertion.

If you are not claiming anything, then you haven't refuted anything. You have to actually present evidence of an alternative explanation to debunk something. And you never did that. Which is why the 3 videos stand unrefuted.

Quote:As demonstrated above, all videos require corroborating evidence... and yours never have any. Since the null hypothesis is the default assumption, the onus is on you provide the evidence of your claims... which you never do.

No they don't. As I just showed, videos are sufficient to prove the existence/involvement of people in criminal cases, the existence/involvement of animals in scientific research, and the existence/happening of events of weather on earth, on other planets, and even our own Sun. Lacking any reason to think otherwise, the video itself IS the evidence, and compelling and undeniable at that.

(May 17, 2025 11:07 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]That level of identification is not required to establish the existence or involvement of a person or being. If the case was of whether a person jumped off a bridge or was pushed, the mere video of someone doing that would irrefutably prove that. If a child is lost, and we have video of someone abducting them, that is enough to prove the existence of the abductor. If a trailcam shows a cougar attacking a calf, we are satisfied that it has proven that there was a cougar there doing that without demanding that it prove some particular cougar did it. Likewise we only need to prove the existence and involvement of A ghost, and not a particular ghost, to meet the standard of reliable evidence. Hence the total reliability of the videos.

Again, Hollywood. Just because it looks like something happened doesn't mean it actually happened in reality. Seeing is only believing if you're endlessly credulous.
You even prove my point about corroborating evidence. When you say "If a child is lost, and we have video...," then you have more information than just the video. Again, if you set up a trail cam, you have some preexisting evidence to believe it is a likely spot to see wildlife.

And again, you're comparing apples and zebras. We have ample preexisting evidence for the actual existence of people, children, cougars, calves, etc., beyond videos that can be easily manipulated. We do not have preexisting evidence that ghosts exist, other than the weak evidence of easily manipulated or mistaken videos, pictures, & anecdotes.

Quote:Totally false. Even if we had no idea of what lightning is, the video alone of it striking the plane would be totally sufficient to establish its existence. Even if we had never seen a wolf before, the video alone would be totally adequate proof of its existence. This reliability of video to prove how events occurred and what caused them is simply unimpeachable. And while we may not know exactly what a ghost is, we have acquired enough data on them over the years to know what they look like and the way they behave. These 3 videos are totally in line with that data and are supported by it. The fact that they are ghostlike and captured doing ghostlike things eliminates them being actual living persons.

The existence of what? Magic sky light? Hitting what? A giant bird that doesn't flap it's wings? If you've never seen a wolf, you have no idea what a video of one is showing you. So you making claims about what the wolf is would be an argument from ignorance. And that's exactly what your ghost claims are. It's a fallacy and an dishonest attempt to shift the burden for your own claims. That's what makes you a shitty person.

"And while we may not know exactly what a ghost is" Like I said, argument from ignorance. You can't make affirmative claims about something you admit you don't understand... unless you're a delusional quasi-religious true believer.

Quote:

Quote:We do have reproducibility in your examples, because we understand why lightning strikes planes and that we can set up instruments in planes to makes measurements next time it happens. We only set up a trail cam because we know enough about wildlife to know that they will come through that area again.

Then the fact that ghosts are captured repeatedly on CCTV's and security cams and cellphones all over the world qualifies equally as reproduced evidence. It's how we know they exist. Just like we know rogue waves exist, and ball lightning, and the giant squid, and other anomalous phenomena.

LEARN HOW TO COMPREHEND SIMPLE ENGLISH, MORON.

I already told you that the same type of weak evidence of different events doesn't contribute to reproducibility. It takes a different, preferably stronger, form of evidence of the same event to establish facts. This is basic science, but we all know how ignorant you are.

Quote:

Quote:Hollywood, moron. I've seen umpteen tsunamis and alien atmospheres. But unless there is real-world damage or data to corroborate them, the videos mean absolutely nothing.

Nope..we have video of meteorites falling from the sky even though we never track down where they landed. We have video of sunspots on the sun, even though we have nothing to corroborate that. We have video of never before seen species of sea life in the deepest parts of the ocean, without any data to back that up. We have video of waterspouts where no trace of them is found afterwards. We have video of red sprites shooting up from thunderclouds, without any vestige of them ever happening. Shall I go on? Video of even transient and innocuous phenomenon/beings is accepted as irrefutable evidence of their existence. Just as these 3 videos of paranormal phenomena are. But then you know this. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to deny it.

Guess what, dipshit. We've also found, studied, and verified the existence of actual meteorites. We understand the physics of magnetic flux that causes sunspots, the biology of comparable sea life, rotating air columns, positive/negative charges of lightning, etc.. In every case, corroborating evidence.

Try again, dipshit.

Quote:

Quote:I didn't back off anything. If you could read worth a damn, you'd know I never made a positive assertion.

If you are not claiming anything, then you haven't refuted anything. You have to actually present evidence of an alternative explanation to debunk something. And you never did that. Which is why the 3 videos stand unrefuted.

You're the only one here making any positive assertion. That literally means the onus is on you to support your claim. But you're just an intellectually dishonest moron repeatedly making the same argument from ignorance.

Quote:

Quote:As demonstrated above, all videos require corroborating evidence... and yours never have any. Since the null hypothesis is the default assumption, the onus is on you provide the evidence of your claims... which you never do.

No they don't. As I just showed, videos are sufficient to prove the existence/involvement of people in criminal cases, the existence/involvement of animals in scientific research, and the existence/happening of events of weather on earth, on other planets, and even our own Sun. Lacking any reason to think otherwise, the video itself IS the evidence, and compelling and undeniable at that.

You didn't show anything, as I've just demonstrated.

Quote:Just because it looks like something happened doesn't mean it actually happened in reality. Seeing is only believing if you're endlessly credulous.

LOL Pretty sure 99.9% of everything we see happening is actually happening. Unless of course it's a video or stage production or a prank designed to create the illusion of something happening. Seeing is believing is the basis of all our knowledge of the world. It is thru the senses that we receive all our information of what is around us. Believing without seeing is in fact the essence of being credulous. It's called faith and is the very opposite of empirical science. If you knew anything about science you'd know this.

Quote:You even prove my point about corroborating evidence. When you say "If a child is lost, and we have video...," then you have more information than just the video. Again, if you set up a trail cam, you have some preexisting evidence to believe it is a likely spot to see wildlife.

Even if no one knew the child was missing, the video of them being abducted would be irrefutable proof they were abducted. Even if we had no idea the calf was killed yet, the trail cam would be adequate proof it was killed by a cougar. No other information is required for a video to be proof of an event. That's how powerful it is as evidence.

Quote:And again, you're comparing apples and zebras. We have ample preexisting evidence for the actual existence of people, children, cougars, calves, etc., beyond videos that can be easily manipulated. We do not have preexisting evidence that ghosts exist, other than the weak evidence of easily manipulated or mistaken videos, pictures, & anecdotes.

Actually we do have ample evidence of ghosts. Eyewitness reports abound globally and in all cultures of paranormal phenomena dating back to the Roman Empire. So much so that everybody even knows what to expect when someone says they see a ghost. Its glowing translucent appearance. Its ability to move things invisibly. Its whispery utterances and moanings. Its ability to touch and caress and chill our bodies. And modern day investigations have been going on for decades capturing them on video and confirming all this knowledge. Many even show them scratching investigators on the back enough to draw blood! So yes, we absolutely do know what ghosts look like and how they behave.

Quote:The existence of what? Magic sky light? Hitting what? A giant bird that doesn't flap it's wings?

LOL So if we have a video showing lightning hitting a plane, we wouldn't be able to see it even if we didn't know what it was? That's insane. The video would be undeniable proof of some nameless phenomena we haven't studied yet. And it would be solid proof it exists.

Quote:If you've never seen a wolf, you have no idea what a video of one is showing you.

There's many creatures I've never seen and don't know exist that a video would instantly prove the existence of. I don't need to know about something in order to perceive it's existence. That's the beauty of video. It proves the existence of phenomena/beings we don't even know exist yet.

Quote:So you making claims about what the wolf is would be an argument from ignorance. And that's exactly what your ghost claims are. It's a fallacy and an dishonest attempt to shift the burden for your own claims. That's what makes you a shitty person.

No moron. An argument from ignorance would be me claiming that because nobody has evidence ghosts don't exist, that they therefore exist. I've never claimed that. I'm saying the evidence is abundant and irrefutable that ghosts exist based on videos and photos and credible and consistent eyewitness accounts. Just like with all unexplained phenomena.

Quote:I already told you that the same type of weak evidence of different events doesn't contribute to reproducibility. It takes a different, preferably stronger, form of evidence of the same event to establish facts. This is basic science, but we all know how ignorant you are.

When we keep getting photos and eyewitness accounts of the same phenomena over and over again under the same typical conditions, that's a reproducible phenomena. Particularly when a certain location repeats the same sort of phenomena like voices and moving objects and apparitions to different people over time. That's how we get locations famous for being haunted by certain individual spirits, because they keep showing up over and over again and doing the same things. A good example of that is the boy ghost that kept showing up repeatedly for the videographer each time he went to that shack. Another is the little girl ghost Jackie heard and recorded numerous times in the pool room of the Queen Mary. There are also repeated encounters of civil war soldier apparitions appearing on the fields of Gettysburg. There's some really good video of that that I already posted here.

Quote:Guess what, dipshit. We've also found, studied, and verified the existence of actual meteorites. We understand the physics of magnetic flux that causes sunspots, the biology of comparable sea life, rotating air columns, positive/negative charges of lightning, etc.. In every case, corroborating evidence.

LOL Knowing what a meteorite is doesn't say anything about what happened on a video at a certain time and location. That meteorite's existence and characteristics are totally ascertained from the video itself. Likewise with sunspots, undiscovered sea life, waterspouts, and red sprites. The event/being itself, it's very existence, is proven only by the video, and by nothing other than the video. And that's true of ghosts as well. Again, the videos prove it beyond all doubt. And no amount of claiming otherwise can ever change that.

Quote:You're the only one here making any positive assertion. That literally means the onus is on you to support your claim. But you're just an intellectually dishonest moron repeatedly making the same argument from ignorance.

Liar. You said the boy ghost video was a hoax created by the videographer using a real boy in grey makeup and white contact lenses who ran behind a wall just in time to not be caught on film. You even claimed to know somehow that he was doing it all for money. It's all on record. You made a positive assertion, and backed it up with no evidence whatsoever. So you refuted nothing.