Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Fallacy of argument from personal incredulity: "I can't believe something is true. Therefore: it isn't true."
Fallacy of argument from personal incredulity: "I can't believe something is true. Therefore: it isn't true."
If that's directed at me, then that's not at all what I have said. I simply need more evidence than you do. If asking for more factual data makes you so defensive, maybe you should examine why what's out there is good enough for you.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what evidence would satisfy you. Can you do that or not?
Posted twice already. But I'm making an assumption we're looking for an actual creature, and not some super natural manifestation, which by definition isn't going to leave any evidence that is testable. An animal would leave traces of feeding, of travel, of rest or living areas, of young, of death. If we're discussing a species, then there has to be a minimum number to have retained a population. Nothing so far is in those categories of evidence.
Can I tell you what would completely convince me? That's not really up to me, as it's not my claim to defend. You've given some stuff and it's not good enough yet.
Don't flatter yourself dearie. I couldn't care less if it convinces you or not. You've clearly already made up your mind like every other ideological skeptic out there. I'm simply providing information for people looking into this phenomenon. I take over 100 eyewitnesses as pretty good evidence. Apparently you don't. End of story.
Fallacy of argument from personal incredulity: "I can't believe something is true. Therefore: it isn't true."
Nope that is not it.
This is the point: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You apparently confused that statement with this statement: Extraordinarily stupid claims require extraordiarily stupid evidence.
Those 2 statements are not the same.
One or two eyewitnesses are usually sufficient to convict a suspect of a crime. But now suddenly over 100 eyewitnesses, extraordinary evidence by any other definition, don't mean anything? Perhaps it is more truthfully said: "Extraordinary skepticism requires extraordinary evidence."
Everytime that there is a particularly warm and clear night there calls to the police to report UFOs that turn out to be Venus or Sirius.
One or two eyewitnesses are usually sufficient to convict a suspect of a crime.
But now suddenly over 100 eyewitnesses, extraordinary evidence by any other definition, don't mean anything? Perhaps it is more truthfully said: "Extraordinary skepticism requires extraordinary evidence."
ALL of their accounts fit the description of one creature and one creature only--the Mothman.
Wrong again! From the Committee of Skeptical Inquiry:
=======
. . . .there were Mothman hoaxes. Rush Finley told me how some construction workers had used helium from welding tanks to make balloons from sheet plastic and tied red flashlights to them one night. Thus weighted, these Mothmen did not soar high but only drifted over the treetops.
=======