Weirder things I would never believed

[Magical Realist]

..had I not read them in a paranormalist's book or seen them in a documentary.

Abductees of aliens often encounter dead people and blue dwarves along with the greys.

Most ufo sightings occur on Wednesday, Saturday, and the 24th of the month.

There are many accounts of winged headless beings thruout the world.

Ghosts can scratch you, often leaving 3 red marks on investigators.

Alien abductees often encounter knocking phenomena in their homes at night.

There are reports of dark figures in the woods with glowing red eyes.

Possessed people often throw up pebbles and needles.

In 1897 there was a flap of elaborate blimps with strange bearded men being sighted who spoke with strange accents and said bizzare things.

In the 1940's there was a flap of thousands of cigar shaped "rockets" over Sweden that made no sound and usually landed in bodies of water.

Men in black sometimes met with bigfoot eyewitnesses and confiscated their photos.

There is a history of people seeing purple blobs in the sky.

Poltergeists often begin their pranks by destroying family pictures.

In Toronto Canada in 1972 a group of seance sitters created a ghost named Phillip who began responding back to them.

In the 1965 there was a flap of bigfoot AND ufo sightings in Pennsylvania.

Christopher Columbus and his crew saw a ufo over the sea.

There are reports of telepathic dog men in the woods at night and there are native american legends about such.

People who have ufo encounters often experience weird phone issues.

[Syne]

The problem is that, since many of things on this list are only known to you secondhand (what you've been told), you assume secondhand knowledge is always valid. The difference you fail to recognize is that you could, personally, verify everything on that first list. It is the fact that you cannot personally verify the claims of this second list that keep them from being facts...or even credible.

[Magical Realist]

The difference you fail to recognize is that you could, personally, verify everything on that first list. It is the fact that you cannot personally verify the claims of this second list that keep them from being facts...or even credible.

Sure I could verify them, if I devoted enough time to exploring the phenomena itself. Witness accounts and personal experiences could easily back up the information, just as they do with science. Except for the Columbus sighting. That's pretty much historical record. The problem with such phenomena is that they are pretty much anomalous events whose patterns only emerge over a statistical analysis of many such accounts. One person is not likely to have enough repeated anomalous experiences to verify these patterns.

[Syne]

The difference you fail to recognize is that you could, personally, verify everything on that first list. It is the fact that you cannot personally verify the claims of this second list that keep them from being facts...or even credible.

Sure I could verify them, if I devoted enough time to exploring the phenomena itself. Witness accounts and personal experiences could easily back up the information, just as they do with science. Except for the Columbus sighting. That's pretty much historical record. The problem with such phenomena is that they are pretty much anomalous events whose patterns only emerge over a statistical analysis of many such accounts. One person is not likely to have enough repeated anomalous experiences to verify these patterns.

You missed the part where I said "personally". That means by your personal experience...not relying on anyone's accounts or experience but your own. You even admit that's not likely. Science, OTOH, is built on repeatable events that anyone could personally experience for themselves, without having to rely solely on the accounts of others. That is how scientific facts are verified. Since you admit these events are not repeatable, they cannot be verified and cannot be considered a factual account of causes.

[Zinjanthropos]

You could probably include on the list that during paranormal encounters cameras won't function properly and guns won't shoot straight. If I was to use either of those instruments in a science experiment they most likely would function normally, depending on the experiment. 

Witness accounts and personal experiences could easily back up the information

I think that has been verified several times over as less than 100% reliable. 

MR, you're a smart guy and I'm having difficulty believing you actually think all these events are legitimate. Perhaps, and I say this jokingly, you are weirder than the stories and you're trying to play us as suckers.   If so I think it's a great experiment to conduct. 

[Magical Realist]

The difference you fail to recognize is that you could, personally, verify everything on that first list. It is the fact that you cannot personally verify the claims of this second list that keep them from being facts...or even credible.

Sure I could verify them, if I devoted enough time to exploring the phenomena itself. Witness accounts and personal experiences could easily back up the information, just as they do with science. Except for the Columbus sighting. That's pretty much historical record. The problem with such phenomena is that they are pretty much anomalous events whose patterns only emerge over a statistical analysis of many such accounts. One person is not likely to have enough repeated anomalous experiences to verify these patterns.

You missed the part where I said "personally". That means by your personal experience...not relying on anyone's accounts or experience but your own. You even admit that's not likely. Science, OTOH, is built on repeatable events that anyone could personally experience for themselves, without having to rely solely on the accounts of others. That is how scientific facts are verified. Since you admit these events are not repeatable, they cannot be verified and cannot be considered a factual account of causes.

Then your whole little bitch session here is irrelevant since I clearly said in both threads I relied on books and documentaries and not personal experience. How much of your own knowledge is based on personal experience btw? Ever dive down to see the Great Barrier Reef? Ever seen a neutrino? Ever have a personal experience with cancer? It doesn't matter if you could confirm them or not. You don't, which makes your knowledge no better than mine or anyone elses.

Since you admit these events are not repeatable, they cannot be verified and cannot be considered a factual account of causes.

We can't repeat alot of events. Ball lightning, earthquake lights, the last ice age, the evolution of humans, your own birth, your first sexual experience (assuming that's happened). Doesn't mean those things aren't facts though. And no. Being unverfiable doesn't mean it isn't a fact either. Verfiability has nothing to do with the fact of something happening. 99% of the experiences of your life are unverifable. But they're still facts regardless.

You could probably include on the list that during paranormal encounters cameras won't function properly and guns won't shoot straight. If I was to use either of those instruments in a science experiment they most likely would function normally, depending on the experiment. 

Witness accounts and personal experiences could easily back up the information

I think that has been verified several times over as less than 100% reliable. 

MR, you're a smart guy and I'm having difficulty believing you actually think all these events are legitimate. Perhaps, and I say this jokingly, you are weirder than the stories and you're trying to play us as suckers.    If so I think it's a great experiment to conduct. 

Sure..it's all part of a deceptive plot to fool you. That's how I spend my days, thinking up new ways just to trick you.

[Syne]

You missed the part where I said "personally". That means by your personal experience...not relying on anyone's accounts or experience but your own. You even admit that's not likely. Science, OTOH, is built on repeatable events that anyone could personally experience for themselves, without having to rely solely on the accounts of others. That is how scientific facts are verified. Since you admit these events are not repeatable, they cannot be verified and cannot be considered a factual account of causes.

Then your whole little bitch session here is irrelevant since I clearly said in both threads I relied on books and documentaries and not personal experience. How much of your own knowledge is based on personal experience btw? Ever dive down to see the Great Barrier Reef? Ever seen a neutrino? Ever have a personal experience with cancer? It doesn't matter if you could confirm them or not. You don't, which makes your knowledge no better than mine or anyone elses.

Yet you keep comparing it to science, e.g. "could easily back up the information, just as they do with science". Since science does rely on repeatability, this comparison is erroneous. The difference between you and I is that what I call knowledge can, and has been, verified by many people, and could be verified by me personally. I could easily book a trip to go see the Great Barrier Reef, but nothing you could do could ever lead you to being abducted by aliens (no matter how eager to be anally probed you may be).

Since you admit these events are not repeatable, they cannot be verified and cannot be considered a factual account of causes.

We can't repeat alot of events. Ball lightning, earthquake lights, the last ice age, the evolution of humans, your own birth, your first sexual experience (assuming that's happened). Doesn't mean those things aren't facts though. And no. Being unverfiable doesn't mean it isn't a fact either. Verfiability has nothing to do with the fact of something happening. 99% of the experiences of your life are unverifable. But they're still facts regardless.

Yet most these events either leave evidence or happen regularly enough for us to collect data on and even sometimes anticipate. As far as personal experiences go, I wouldn't presume for anyone else to take my word as fact without evidence to verify it. You're equivocating "scientific fact" for "actual". Just because something actually happened does not make it a fact. And even if people actually experienced ghosts, aliens, etc., that actuality does not equate to fact without verification that the purported cause is the actual cause.

[Magical Realist]

Yet you keep comparing it to science, e.g. "could easily back up the information, just as they do with science". Since science does rely on repeatability, this comparison is erroneous. The difference between you and I is that what I call knowledge can, and has been, verified by many people, and could be verified by me personally. I could easily book a trip to go see the Great Barrier Reef, but nothing you could do could ever lead you to being abducted by aliens (no matter how eager to be anally probed you may be).

Right..so since I totally blew away your strawman about me not believing these things based on personal experience you now start an entirely different argument about what? that my book/doucmentary claims can't be confirmed like science? So what? I already pointed out that vast majority of what we know from science is based on books and documentaries instead of personal experience. Just like these accounts listed in this thread. It doesn't matter if they could be verified. They aren't and seldom are by most people and are therefore of the same level of truthiness.

Yet most these events either leave evidence or happen regularly enough for us to collect data on and even sometimes anticipate.

UFOs leave evidence in the form of skin and eye burns, broken tree limbs, burnt vegetation, video, photos, soil impressions, and radar data. Paranormal activity can also be recorded and measured with instruments. But that wasn't your complaint was it? You said if it's not repeatable it's not a scientifically verified event. And I just showed that is a complete lie with my examples.

As far as personal experiences go, I wouldn't presume for anyone else to take my word as fact without evidence to verify it. You're equivocating "scientific fact" for "actual". Just because something actually happened does not make it a fact.

LOL! Yes it does. Just because something happened always makes it fact, whether it is verifiable or not. Or are you actually saying the vast majority of unverifible events in your life are not factual events at all.

And even if people actually experienced ghosts, aliens, etc., that actuality does not equate to fact without verification that the purported cause is the actual cause.

If people experienced ghosts and aliens, it remains a fact that they did whether it is verified or not. That's the nature of reality. It doesn't need science or anyone else to confirm that it actually happened.

[Syne]

Yet you keep comparing it to science, e.g. "could easily back up the information, just as they do with science". Since science does rely on repeatability, this comparison is erroneous. The difference between you and I is that what I call knowledge can, and has been, verified by many people, and could be verified by me personally. I could easily book a trip to go see the Great Barrier Reef, but nothing you could do could ever lead you to being abducted by aliens (no matter how eager to be anally probed you may be).

Right..so since I totally blew away your strawman about me not believing these things based on personal experience you now start an entirely different argument about what? that my book/doucmentary claims can't be confirmed like science? So what? I already pointed out that vast majority of what we know from science is based on books and documentaries instead of personal experience. Just like these accounts listed in this thread. It doesn't matter if they could be verified. They aren't and seldom are by most people and are therefore of the same level of credibility.

No strawman, because you continue to demonstrate exactly what I said in my first post. You're still assuming that all secondhand knowledge is equally valid. You would have been better off just agreeing with that assessment. Instead, you laughingly claimed you could verify secondhand knowledge....with more secondhand knowledge. And since you've just agreed with the difference between this list and science (bolded above), I'm not sure what you're arguing about. You seem to wholly agree with me.

Yet most these events either leave evidence or happen regularly enough for us to collect data on and even sometimes anticipate.

UFOs leave evidence in the form of skin and eye burns, broken tree limbs, burnt vegetation, video, photos, soil impressions, and radar data. Paranormal activity can also be recorded and measured with instruments. But that wasn't your complaint was it? You said if it's not repeatable it's not a scientifically confirmed event. And I just showed that is a complete lie with my examples.

Facts do not equal findings. The evidence you mention does not, itself, equal the conclusion that a UFO or ghost was the cause. The evidence may be verifiable, but the conclusions are not. Many people could independently verify that evidence, but none of this includes definitive evidence for the existence of your supposed causes.

As far as personal experiences go, I wouldn't presume for anyone else to take my word as fact without evidence to verify it. You're equivocating "scientific fact" for "actual". Just because something actually happened does not make it a fact.

LOL! Yes it does. Just because something happened always makes it fact, whether it is verifiable or not. Or are you actually saying the vast majority of unverifible events in your life are not factual events at all.  

Did you miss where I just contrasted "scientific fact" with "actual"? Are you claiming that any actual event qualifies as scientific fact?

[Magical Realist]

No strawman, because you continue to demonstrate exactly what I said in my first post. You're still assuming that all secondhand knowledge is equally valid. You would have been better off just agreeing with that assessment. Instead, you laughingly claimed you could verify secondhand knowledge....with more secondhand knowledge. And since you've just agreed with the difference between this list and science (bolded above), I'm not sure what you're arguing about. You seem to wholly agree with me.

Like I pointed out, it isn't the mere possibility of the confirmation of facts that determines their truth. Afterall, it is certainly possible to confirm many ufo sightings with videos and multiple eyewitnesses and trace data. What is required is actual first hand confirmation, which isn't provided by science at all. All the data we get from science is second hand, unless you're claiming you've confirmed salmon runs and whale cries and photon/wave duality and black holes yourself. I doubt it though.

Facts do not equal findings. The evidence you mention does not, itself, equal the conclusion that a UFO or ghost was the cause. The evidence may be verifiable, but the conclusions are not. Many people could independently verify that evidence, but none of this includes definitive evidence for the existence of your supposed causes.

Repeated eyewitness accounts and video and photos and energy measurements and effects on the ground and human skin provide compelling evidence for the reality of the ufo phenomenon beyond mere speculations of anything natural or manmade. That's the conclusion demanded by the evidence. Study it yourself and see.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/

Did you miss where I just contrasted "scientific fact" with "actual"? Are you claiming that any actual event qualifies as scientific fact?

I'm responding to your insane claim that "just because something happened doesn't make it fact." Ofcourse it does. Everything that happens is a fact of the world, whether science has confirmed it or not. Your whole life consists of unverifiable things that happened that are factual. They really happened. And it is a fact that they happened and were real events. There's no way around this.