Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not going to pursue this sidebar further.

The actual behavior at-hand in the core issue off thread is far more interesting.

But seriously, don't put words in other people's mouths.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It's a rhetorical question.

Of course you don't.

Because, despite your claim, you instinctively know not to trust complete strangers when you don't know what their motives are.
Click to expand...

No..I know people with an agenda to take money from strangers need to be checked out. That's a compelling reason to doubt their veracity.
 
It's funny how they're only a troll when they have good reason for not trusting your judgement.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I see you are continuing both
a] your belief that a public forum is somehow private, and
b] that you have any business trying to moderate discussion in it.
Click to expand...

It's very simple. Don't presume to speak for other people. And don't defend a poster insulting another poster. Unless you want to be ignored.
 
We have a fundamental break here, in the course of the thread.

It has become clear that the issue is about the use of the term compelling.

Simply put, your stance is that reading an article or watching a video where someone claims something falls well within your definition of compelling.

The examples you list are, by virtually anyone else's standards not compelling.

The original article you linked to said virtually nothing of your repeated assertions of 3D full figure, moving human forms, without distraction or interference passing right in front of a witness. It is indeed quite sparse, not to mention the fact that we have zero access to its source. It is not first-hand, we don't even know if it's second-hand. We know virtually nothing about the actual incident.

Subsequent articles referenced animals.

When asked for your evidence of 3D full figure, moving human forms, without distraction or interference passing right in front of a witness, you said "I already have."

You had not. When pressed to refer to these articles had supposedly "already" posted, you posted some new articles. That's a bait & switch.
 
What I'm really interested in is why you would freely admit that you believe things by default and only question them if -

well, never. you'd been presented with a preponderance of evidence that - especially when it comes to the extraordinary - people get stuff wrong. They embellish, they mis-remember, they over-interpret, they omit. You are blind to it all.

I would hazard to say that there is absolutely nothing that would convince you to be skeptical of an account of an apparition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top