Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That door swings both ways. And you kicked it open very early on the the thread, and have kept it open. You have no complaint now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

I didn't insult Kitt here. He insulted me. And always does. But see, you wouldn't know that. Because it's not your business.

 

Well, you guess what their motives are.

 

You know what a public forum is, right? Move on.

 

I know they're trying to make money off me. That's not a guess.

 

You have no idea of my history with this troll. So stick to what you know. It will make you look less a fool here.

 

Your history is off-topic to this thread. Please stay on-topic.

 

Then don't tell me how to handle a known troll. It's none of your business. Got it? Unless ofcourse YOUR trolling now..

 

It's funny how they're only a troll when they have good reason for not trusting your judgement.

 

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.

 

A troll is a troll. Argue your point without insulting the poster. It's very easy. Evidently not for everyone though..

 

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.

 

*sigh*

 

No insults at all. I was really concerned about your malfunctioning brain. Have you been checked out yet?

 

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.

 

Well there we have it. You have opened the door and continue to hold it open. No more complaining now, y'hear?