Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tales of telepathic dogmen

#11
Syne Offline
(May 2, 2018 11:59 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No they don't. They require the same validation any other physical event might require. Many unrelated eyewitnesses seeing the same thing. Photos.. Footprints. Stuff like that. There is no mysterious higher bar for extraordinary events that can never be met.  That's a common debunker's cop out from accepting eyewitness accounts of the extraordinary.
Yes, they do. Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints of common bears only require the evidence of any other physical event, because bears have been thoroughly proven to exist. There is no debate whether bears exist, as you can go to almost any zoo and view one yourself.
But eyewitness (which has been proven scientifically dubious), poor quality photos of unverifiable subjects, and footprints without anything to match it to are all faulty evidence, at best, for something highly questionable (especially with extraordinary claims of being telepathic).
Just like all the same evidence for a supposed pink unicorn wouldn't be objectively verifiable as not being faulty eyewitness, altered or poor-quality oddly-lit photos, and hoof prints indistinguishable from any common horse.
Quote:
Quote:Everyone can see you modified your post 12 mins after posting

LOL! 1 hour ago (This post was last modified: 1 hour ago by Magical Realist.)

Wrong post, genius. Remember, the post with the links:
(May 2, 2018 10:43 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: 2 hours ago (This post was last modified: 1 hour ago by Magical Realist.)
So just your typical lying. LOL! Rolleyes
Reply
#12
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:Yes, they do. Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints of common bears only require the evidence of any other physical event, because bears have been thoroughly proven to exist. There is no debate whether bears exist, as you can go to almost any zoo and view one yourself.

It's the same evidence. Was there a bear there? Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints. Was there a dogman there? Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints. Nothing extra is required because they are both physical events leaving the same traces. There is nothing else. And that's why debunkers raise the bar, because there is ofcourse no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Not until they kill one and provide the corpse. But you don't need to kill an animal to know it exists. You just have to have enough people reporting it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm

Quote:Wrong post, genius. Remember, the post with the links:

Wrong bitch. That IS the post with the links, post #5, which now says:

2 hours ago (This post was last modified: 2 hours ago by Magical Realist.)
Reply
#13
Syne Offline
(May 3, 2018 01:24 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Yes, they do. Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints of common bears only require the evidence of any other physical event, because bears have been thoroughly proven to exist. There is no debate whether bears exist, as you can go to almost any zoo and view one yourself.

It's the same evidence. Was there a bear there? Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints. Was there a dogman there? Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints. Nothing extra is required because they are both physical events leaving the same traces. There is nothing else. And that's why debunkers raise the bar, because there is ofcourse no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Not until they kill one and provide the corpse. But you don't need to kill an animal to know it exists. You just have to have enough people reporting it.
The bar is no higher, you're evidence is just sorely lacking. Can you show me a living dogman? No? Well I can show you a living bear, at just about any zoo. Can you compare a dogman footprint to a dogman foot? No? Well I can do so with a bear. Can you show me the actual, living dogman you took a picture of? No? Well I can show you the actual, living bear I may take a picture of.

You're a complete imbecile if you can't recognize the difference there. There's just a difference between evidence and verifiable evidence. Unverifiable evidence doesn't demonstrate what is is evidence of.
Quote:
Quote:Wrong post, genius. Remember, the post with the links:

Wrong bitch. That IS the post with the links, post #5, which now says:

2 hours ago (This post was last modified: 2 hours ago by Magical Realist.)

You're still lying, moron. Now post #5 says: "3 hours ago (This post was last modified: 2 hours ago by Magical Realist.)"
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-5272-p...l#pid19868

[Image: 2i2095y.png]
[Image: 2i2095y.png]

Reply
#14
Magical Realist Offline
(May 3, 2018 02:11 AM)Syne Wrote:
(May 3, 2018 01:24 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Yes, they do. Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints of common bears only require the evidence of any other physical event, because bears have been thoroughly proven to exist. There is no debate whether bears exist, as you can go to almost any zoo and view one yourself.

It's the same evidence. Was there a bear there? Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints. Was there a dogman there? Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints. Nothing extra is required because they are both physical events leaving the same traces. There is nothing else. And that's why debunkers raise the bar, because there is ofcourse no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Not until they kill one and provide the corpse. But you don't need to kill an animal to know it exists. You just have to have enough people reporting it.
The bar is no higher, you're evidence is just sorely lacking. Can you show me a living dogman? No? Well I can show you a living bear, at just about any zoo. Can you compare a dogman footprint to a dogman foot? No? Well I can do so with a bear. Can you show me the actual, living dogman you took a picture of? No? Well I can show you the actual, living bear I may take a picture of.

We discover new species every year without having one in captivity. How do you think we do that? Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints. Same with dogmen. Same with those new apes they discovered back in 2004. There is nothing extraordinary about the existence of unknown species.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm

"Even after centuries of effort, some 86 percent of Earth's species have yet to be fully described, according to new study that predicts our planet is home to 8.7 million species.

That means scientists have cataloged less than 15 percent of species now alive—and current extinction rates mean many unknown organisms will wink out of existence before they can be recorded."--- https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news...s-science/

Quote:
Quote:Wrong post, genius. Remember, the post with the links:

Wrong bitch. That IS the post with the links, post #5, which now says:

2 hours ago (This post was last modified: 2 hours ago by Magical Realist.)

Quote:You're still lying, moron. Now post #5 says: "3 hours ago (This post was last modified: 2 hours ago by Magical Realist.)"
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-5272-p...l#pid19868

[Image: 2i2095y.png]
[Image: 2i2095y.png]


Lying bitch..it says:

3 hours ago (This post was last modified: 3 hours ago by Magical Realist.)

Just admit it bitch. You fucked up again.
Reply
#15
Syne Offline
(May 3, 2018 02:21 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(May 3, 2018 02:11 AM)Syne Wrote: The bar is no higher, you're evidence is just sorely lacking. Can you show me a living dogman? No? Well I can show you a living bear, at just about any zoo. Can you compare a dogman footprint to a dogman foot? No? Well I can do so with a bear. Can you show me the actual, living dogman you took a picture of? No? Well I can show you the actual, living bear I may take a picture of.

We discover new species every year without having one in captivity. How do you think we do that? Eyewitnesses, photos, and footprints. Same with dogmen. Same with those new apes they discovered back in 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm

"Scientists believe they have discovered a new group of giant apes in the jungles of central Africa.
...
So far, researchers have little to go on, but they now plan to return to northern DR Congo to study the apes further.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm

But then verified with stuff like:

"While preliminary genetic testing with non-nuclear DNA indicates a close relationship with the eastern chimpanzee
...
DNA samples recovered from feces also reaffirmed the classification of these apes in the chimp subspecies Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape


Your supposed dogmen lack any of the verification, like DNA samples or even scientific observation.
Again, you're a complete imbecile if you conflate evidence and verified evidence...which you so intently insist on doing.
Quote:
Quote:You're still lying, moron. Now post #5 says: "3 hours ago (This post was last modified: 2 hours ago by Magical Realist.)"
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-5272-p...l#pid19868

[Image: 2i2095y.png]
[Image: 2i2095y.png]


Lying bitch..it says:

3 hours ago (This post was last modified: 3 hours ago by Magical Realist.)

Just admit it bitch. You fucked up again.

Wow. You can't even read the image right in front of your eyes. Your self-delusion overwhelms even your ability to perceive immediate reality.
Reply
Reply
#17
C C Offline
(May 2, 2018 11:51 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Maybe it was just a bald bear with a bad case of mange.  Can you imagine running into something like that when you're out hiking?  That would scare the shit out me. [image]

In his drunken den outside Cuna Abra,
Tell the Bear
To beware
The mite-bites
Which cursed Coyote into chupacabra.

Egads, what familiar animal changes into a crypto-beast next? A mange sheep won't scare anybody, though it might excite lovelorn outcasts in Texas, California, and Colorado.

~
Reply
Reply
#19
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:Your supposed dogmen lack any of the verification, like DNA samples or even scientific observation.

That's just plain ignorant. You don't have to have the DNA of a new species to know it exists. That doesn't even make sense. Eyewitness accounts would certainly precede any DNA sampling of it. We have been discovering species for hundreds of years based on eyewitness accounts and without DNA. We are still in the eyewitness and footprint stage of dogmen, which is verified by every subsequent account and footprint of them. As long as we have eyewitness accounts all remarkably consistent as to the characteristics of this creature we have strong evidence for its existence. Just as is the case for any other species we discover. Many of these sightings go back to the 1800's, so we know they've been out there for centuries. Native Americans talked about them. Thank goodness there are honest searchers out there trying to track these things, as elusive and intelligent as they seem to be.

Oh and I just checked post #5 again. It says:

5 hours ago (This post was last modified: 5 hours ago by Magical Realist.
Reply
#20
Syne Offline
(May 3, 2018 04:09 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Your supposed dogmen lack any of the verification, like DNA samples or even scientific observation.

That's just plain ignorant. You don't have to have the DNA of a new species to know it exists. That doesn't even make sense. Eyewitness accounts would certainly precede any DNA sampling of it. We have been discovering species for hundreds of years based on eyewitness accounts and without DNA. We are still in the eyewitness and footprint stage of dogmen, which is verified by every subsequent account and footprint of them. As long as we have eyewitness accounts all remarkably consistent as to the characteristics of this creature we have strong evidence for its existence. Just as is the case for any other species we discover. Many of these sightings go back to the 1800's, so we know they've been out there for centuries. Native Americans talked about them. Thank goodness there are honest searchers out there trying to track these things, as elusive and intelligent as they seem to be.
You do have to have verification for science to recognize it as a new species. We can also take people to the habitat of a new species to demonstrate its existence. Footprints are meaningless without an exemplar. You can say that a footprint doesn't seem to match any known species (if you can exhaust all possibilities and natural distortions), but you cannot legitimately claim it matches some hitherto unproven species without any other physical evidence to connect the two. That's how science works, and you just keep proving how scientifically illiterate you are. You'd much rather maintain your dogmatic woo.
Again, what happened to the supposed photo mentioned in your OP?
Quote:Oh and I just checked post #5 again. It says:

5 hours ago (This post was last modified: 5 hours ago by Magical Realist.
Yeah, after it gets past an hour, it apparently rounds to the nearest hour. You can either keep checking to see the truth, or just read it from this new screen capture:

[Image: 2dcbuxj.png]
[Image: 2dcbuxj.png]



Or just keep being the liar we all know you are...because we all know you know the truth. Rolleyes
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Odd accounts and strange tales orbit around Shasta Magical Realist 4 1,040 Feb 29, 2024 05:32 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  True ghost tales Magical Realist 68 8,822 Oct 13, 2016 05:38 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Hospice tales of the paranormal Magical Realist 45 6,948 Sep 27, 2016 07:08 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)