Proof of the supernatural

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magical Realist said:
No it doesn't. You have the total choice to insult or not. And that's what you do. And you are morally responsible for that. It is the only way you can "win" an argument. Belittle and mock them instead of offering anything persuasive.
Click to expand...


Certainly its paranoia! and stupid as well. You have claimed anyone that objects to the nonsense you post as not seeing the situation as it should be seen...you have derided all of science over many threads.....you claim all that oppose you are out to get you......
You most certainly are presenting good reasons as to why people may infer you are stupid and paranoid.
I would claim you are being totally intellectually dishonest, but I cannot find anything worthy of calling intellect in your rantings and ravings.
 
You most certainly are presenting good reasons as to why people may infer you are stupid and paranoid.
I would claim you are being totally intellectually dishonest, but I cannot find anything worthy of calling intellect in your rantings and ravings.
Click to expand...

And more insults. You should probably quit while you're ahead. You're not helping your position at all here.
 
Magical Realist said:
No it doesn't. You have the total choice to insult or not. And that's what you do. And you are morally responsible for that. It is the only way you can "win" an argument. Belittle and mock them instead of offering anything persuasive.
Click to expand...

As opposed to what you do, which is ignore factual evidence and put people on ignore...
 
Come on guys. MR has created a magical world, perhaps only in his head, and it's beautiful, and who are we to be the ultimate judge of what's real? Maybe death isn't real. I can conceive of a future where our consciousness can exist as pure language or code, to be installed in any number of alternate media. Paranormal research must at least be given the benefit of the doubt. There is evidence in this case, a recorded sound. I agree it sounds like human speech. It could be that, in the future, the saved baby uses a time machine to go backwards and encourage those guys in their rescue attempt. Or maybe in the future there will be time phones.
 
Come on guys. MR has created a magical world, perhaps only in his head, and it's beautiful, and who are we to be the ultimate judge of what's real?
Click to expand...

Yep..I created this whole incident. Made up the 6 rescuers who heard the voice coming from the car, and made up the audio clip of the voice. It's all in my head. Afterall, we all know it was REALLY just a talking river dolphin. lol!
 
Magical Realist said:
What factual evidence have I ignored? And where is ignoring people a rules violation?
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, you have ignored the plethora of evidence that has been provided showing how easily the rescue workers could be mistaken with where the voice came from and what it was (including the fact that it is heard MULTIPLE times in your own video evidence outside of the supposed plea for help), you've ignored the fact that the recording in question doesn't give any indication of WHERE the sound came from, much less any indication that it came from inside the car, and you have ignored the fact that there were other people around the scene.

As for where putting people on ignore is a rules violation - that alone isn't... what makes it a violation is this:

James R said:
Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members
13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions. Links and references are always welcome, though a convincing argument will often do just as well or better.

14. Post coherently. The aim of writing anything is to communicate something to somebody else. Make your posts readable – use paragraphs, punctuation, correct capitalisation and correct spelling. Make your point clearly and succinctly.

15. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you’re claiming that Einstein was wrong, or that evolution does not occur, or that aliens are visiting Earth, be prepared to provide strong evidence in defence of your argument. If you only have an opinion, avoid posting on topics such as these.

16. Avoid using logical fallacies in arguments.
Click to expand...

James R said:
3. If you post a thread, expect people to reply to it. Bear in mind that the thread is on a public forum and all members are free to contribute to it; you may not place restrictions on who may respond. (The only exception to this is threads in the Formal Debates subforum, which has its own rules.)

12. If you ask another member for evidence, be prepared to read the information that he or she provides for you. Don’t claim that evidence has not been provided just because you didn’t take the effort to read it.
Click to expand...

James R said:
9. Posts tending to defame a person (i.e. to affect his or her good reputation) are, in general, unacceptable. However, a person is not defamed when his or her own published opinions are used to draw reasonable, supported conclusions. Nor is he defamed if he is not in some way identifiable. True information about a person is not defamatory.

15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.
Click to expand...

Essentially, the spirit of why you are doing so is what makes it against the rules; you are doing it because you are incapable of defeating the arguments being presented in a logical manner backed with actual facts. So, you choose to ignore bits and pieces, or whole posts, where it suits you. You then continue to post your extraordinary claims without the required extraordinary evidence to back them, and posting, in essence, false and fallacious statements. This is, in essence, trolling and intellectual dishonesty.
 
Kittamaru said:
Well, for starters, you have ignored the plethora of evidence that has been provided showing how easily the rescue workers could be mistaken with where the voice came from and what it was (including the fact that it is heard MULTIPLE times in your own video evidence outside of the supposed plea for help), you've ignored the fact that the recording in question doesn't give any indication of WHERE the sound came from, much less any indication that it came from inside the car, and you have ignored the fact that there were other people around the scene.
Click to expand...

No..you have only speculated that the voice came from the bridge. You have provided no evidence of this, and cannot explain why a bystander would shout "Why doesn't somebody help" as heard by the rescue workers.

As for where putting people on ignore is a rules violation - that alone isn't... what makes it a violation is this:







Essentially, the spirit of why you are doing so is what makes it against the rules; you are doing it because you are incapable of defeating the arguments being presented in a logical manner backed with actual facts. So, you choose to ignore bits and pieces, or whole posts, where it suits you. You then continue to post your extraordinary claims without the required extraordinary evidence to back them, and posting, in essence, false and fallacious statements. This is, in essence, trolling and intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

I have provided evidence for my claims. 6 eyewitnesses and an audio clip. You have provided nothing but speculation and BS. Then for the last 3 pages you accuse me of saying things I never said, and attack my character based on these lies. This is what gets you ignored. You flame and insult and threaten when you can't make your case. As a moderator you should be setting a good example. But you don't. Because you don't know how to calmly and effectively debate an issue.
 
Magical Realist said:
No..you have only speculated that the voice came from the bridge. You have provided no evidence of this, and cannot explain why a bystander would shout "Why doesn't somebody help" as heard by the rescue workers.
Click to expand...

I never said it came from the bridge. I also explained how it is unclear what, exactly, the voice was saying. The fact remains - we hear the voice several other times in that same video.

Magical Realist said:
I have provided evidence for my claims. 6 eyewitnesses and an audio clip.
Click to expand...

And it has been explained to you, time and again, why the "eye witnesses" are unreliable and why the audio clip does NOTHING to ascertain direction or location of the voice. And yet you STILL continue to ignore it.


Magical Realist said:
You have provided nothing but speculation and BS. Then for the last 3 pages you accuse me of saying things I never said, and attack my character based on these lies. This is what gets you ignored. You flame and insult and threaten when you can't make your case.
Click to expand...

Per the rules, nothing I have said about you constitutes flaming - they are simple observations, based on YOUR behavior.

Magical Realist said:
As a moderator you should be setting a good example. But you don't. Because you don't know how to calmly and effectively debate an issue.
Click to expand...

The issue was "calmly and effectively" debated to death - you then decided to beat a dead horse repeatedly because you cannot accept the truth.

At this point, you are trolling, nothing more and nothing less.

Magical Realist said:
I'll wait for tomorrow's theory. They seem to be getting more and more imaginative.
Click to expand...

No more imaginative than "voices from a corpse" :)
 
Magical Realist said:
Yep..I created this whole incident. Made up the 6 rescuers who heard the voice coming from the car, and made up the audio clip of the voice. It's all in my head. Afterall, we all know it was REALLY just a talking river dolphin. lol!
Click to expand...


Why are you so desperately dishonest?
The inference as any one can see is with regards to your beliefs, as soon as something happens that cannot at that instant, be immediately explained.
Oooooh, it must be a ghost! Ooooh, It must be some sort of supernatural event.
Jumping to the conclusions that you do, without investigating, as scientists do, convicts you of all the insinuations that you have thrown your way, and even those that you perceive to be thrown your way.
Like I said, If the cap fits, wear it.
 
Now you're accusing me of trolling. Is this another attempt to ban me?

I've already PM'd James R about this. We'll see what HE has to say, eh?
 
paddoboy said:
Why are you so desperately dishonest?
The inference as any one can see is with regards to your beliefs, as soon as something happens that cannot at that instant, be immediately explained.
Oooooh, it must be a ghost! Ooooh, It must be some sort of supernatural event.
Jumping to the conclusions that you do, without investigating, as scientists do, convicts you of all the insinuations that you have thrown your way, and even those that you perceive to be thrown your way.

Like I said, If the cap fits, wear it.
Click to expand...

You have provided nothing but insults here. You have yet to offer one plausible explanation for how 6 rescue workers hear the same voice coming from inside a car they are all standing around nor why we in fact hear that voice on the audio clip. The evidence is strong and hasn't been refuted yet. Speculations of skeptics who weren't there will never trump eyewitness accounts or actual audio evidence.
 
Magical Realist said:
You have yet to offer one plausible explanation for how 6 rescue workers hear the same voice coming from inside a car they are all standing around nor why we in fact hear that voice on the audio clip. The evidence is strong and hasn't been refuted yet. Speculations of skeptics who weren't there will never trump eyewitness accounts or actual audio evidence.
Click to expand...
"Ghosts" is not a plausible explanation either.

There is no evidence, only hearsay and wishful thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top