The Portsmouth Poltergeist

[Magical Realist]

There's zero independently verifiable evidence to discuss. Claiming anything stands "unrefuted" is the typical crackpot refrain of "prove me wrong," while never offering any compelling evidence worthy of any refute at all. You're just making religious proclamations out of your abiding faith. It's essentially just proselytizing. Telling people they should believe the testimony of your faith's believers. Tell me again, why don't you believe the similar, but vastly more numerous, testimonies about god?

The events still stand unrefuted as Syne continues whining and bitching about it and insulting me now as a religious proselytizer of all things.. Maybe he hasn't noticed I'm posting in the Weird Forum. So it is entirely appropriate.

[Zinjanthropos]

Another famous poltergeist case
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfield_poltergeist

Interesting to read the paranormal side vs the skeptical. Why can’t we all believe the same thing?

On a separate note….You know, if you wear glasses like me there are always occasions like a quick tilt of your head, when it seems like something is moving across the floor or a shadow is crossing your path. You think you’ve seen a mouse and it’s really nothing when you take time to investigate and analyze. For something as simple as natural light tricking your eyes, is it worth making a claim of paranormal activity over it?

[Syne]

The events still stand unrefuted as Syne continues whining and bitching about it and insulting me now as a religious proselytizer of all things.. Maybe he hasn't noticed I'm posting in the Weird Forum. So it is entirely appropriate.

I never said it wasn't an appropriate place to post this stuff. Quit making up defensive bullshit.
But thanks for doubling down on your crackpot claims and lacking the self-awareness to see the obvious similarity to religious belief.

[Magical Realist]

There's zero independently verifiable evidence to discuss.

The neighbor who visited the house and witnessed the activity is interviewed on the video I posted. So do you really believe the family and the neighbors who saw the objects being thrown by noone just made all this up for the hell of it? Why? Why would anyone hoax something like this just to become known for all time as the family with the poltergeist? Not to mention how the hell they managed to elaborately hoax the moving and hurling objects. It doesn't make any sense at all.

[Syne]

There's zero independently verifiable evidence to discuss.

The neighbor who visited the house is interviewed on the video I posted. So do you really believe the family and the neighbors who saw the objects being thrown by noone just made all this up for the hell of it? Why? Why would anyone hoax something like this just to become known for all time as the family with the poltergeist? Not to mention how the hell they managed to elaborately hoax the moving and hurling objects. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Just like I never said this was an inappropriate place to post this stuff, I also never said this was an intentional hoax. Quit erecting defensive straw men.
Eyewitnesses are no more independently verifiable than hearsay, but we've roundly established your ignorance of what constitutes evidence, including the notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses.

[Magical Realist]

Eyewitnesses are no more independently verifiable than hearsay,

And yet every day we have no problem at all believing eyewitnesses for news stories and police reports and history itself. I've never heard anybody demand independently verifiable evidence when an eyewitness describes what they saw. Unless they are some obnoxious skeptic with an agenda of not believing certain things can happen. But such a-holes aren't generally taken very seriously.

[Syne]

Eyewitnesses are no more independently verifiable than hearsay,

And yet every day we have no problem at all believing eyewitnesses for news stories and police reports and history itself. I've never heard anybody demand independently verifiable evidence when an eyewitness describes what they saw. Unless they are some obnoxious skeptic with an agenda of not believing certain things can happen. But such a-holes aren't generally taken very seriously.

Because news has become little more than opinion, it's at its second lowest level of public trust. Plenty of news stories turn out to be blatantly false, but they neglect or try to hide those updates. Police reports and legit history have supporting evidence. We've seen plenty of people wrongly convicted (later exonerated by DNA evidence) by eyewitness testimony alone, because a jury trial is ultimately decided on opinion, not evidence. Most people describing what they saw are not making extraordinary claims...which require extraordinary evidence. And even those who claim to have seen a crime, usually require actual evidence to convict. If you believe what others tell you without any supporting evidence, you are gullible. And pretending that a mundane claim is the same as an extraordinary or paranormal claim is just intellectually dishonest, which is often a hallmark of true believers.