Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
5 cases of unexplained figures caught on camera. They appear legit to me.
Creepy trail cam and gopro pics
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
All included in the anecdotes. Did you even watch it?
BTW, I will not post evidence against something when there is no evidence against it. Capiche?
Last edited:
please don't ban MR again. he/she adds their own unique breath/life/pov to this forum.
I didn't see any critical analysis in that video. Just a lot of "this is an unexplained mystery".
Yes, I did, as a matter of fact.
They do not form a very impressive "Top 5". I mean, take the last cases mentioned, for instance - the mysterious girl on the bridge. That girl looks like a jogger who crossed the bridge and went on her way before the motor bikes managed to turn around and come back. Ho hum. All a big mystery, eh?
The opening post is a drive-by posting of a youtube clip, with no analysis or commentary from MR other than his personal opinion that the clip is "legit", supported by zero evidence or investigation. There's no point of discussion raised. There's no evidence that MR has looked into any of the 5 cases mentioned. In fact, all indications are that MR's only source of information on these cases is the video clip he has posted. He might as well have posted a link to an episode of Sesame Street that he happened to enjoy watching.
There's no evidence that MR switched on his brain at any point in the process of cutting and pasting the link.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Bullshit liar. You complained about me posting anecdotes without evidence. I have posted anecodotes complete with photo and video evidence. We don't all live in your paranoid little world where videos are faked James. They are completely valid forms of evidence for unexplained figures. And I'm not going to be forced to criticize something I find no problem with. That's what I post. The evidence I have no problem with. The video stands on its own merits. If it shakes your little sciency worldview where everything has a neat explanation, all the better.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL. Yes, not being explained away by pretentious "critical analysis"-----or what amounts to speculative "could be this or thats"---WOULD be the definition of an unexplained mystery.
Hard to jog off the middle of a long bridge in the few minutes it took the drivers to come back to look for her. Plus she was wearing a flowery dress. Not exactly a jogging outfit now is it?
Last edited:
then can't you or others just analyze it for yourself so others can have different points of view and let it be that? why does MR have to consider evidence the same as another's?
It could work just as well with others analysis and point of view as to the veracity and why's or why nots without attacking MR personally because he/she doesn't have the same opinion on the matter. I mean, we all make our counterpoints but at some point it's more productive to just let different critiques stand alone on it's own merits for others to decide for themselves. simple and no harm done. That's what these topics are for.
Not everyone has to agree. Why try and force MR or anyone else to a certain point of view beyond a couple of tries? If it doesn't meet scientific criteria, it's just another teaching tool to explain why.
But the truth is, you can't be certain that all these are fake either even if some or maybe most are. Nor can you be certain that paranormal phenomena doesn't exist or that UFO's don't exist.
That's pretty even and open ground.
Last edited:
MR:
I mean, think about what we have here. There's some video of a jogger on a bridge. There's a photo of a girl walking through woodland with her father. There's an uninteresting photo of some foliage with a few lights visible in the background. And I'd have to watch it again to even remember what the last two unremarkable things were.
Great Top 5 mystery, MR!
Tell me, MR. How long is this particular bridge? Where was the girl first seen on the bridge (how far from the end)? Where was she on the bridge when the video was taken? How far the motorcyclists ride before turning around? How long did it taken them to get back to the other end of the bridge? Approximately how fast was the girl walking/jogging along the bridge?
I sure hope you have the answers to these basic questions. Otherwise, I'll have to assume you're just making stuff up.
Excuse me?
In this case, we have some photos and video footage with voiceover second-hand anecdote.
Are no videos ever faked in your comfortable huge world?
And that's your problem. You're utterly, unquestioningly credulous of everything.
And it's merits are few.
Do you really think a few more fuzzy photos are going to shake my little sciency worldview? No, MR. You'll need to do so much better than this if that's what you're seeking to achieve.
I mean, think about what we have here. There's some video of a jogger on a bridge. There's a photo of a girl walking through woodland with her father. There's an uninteresting photo of some foliage with a few lights visible in the background. And I'd have to watch it again to even remember what the last two unremarkable things were.
Great Top 5 mystery, MR!
Is it?
Tell me, MR. How long is this particular bridge? Where was the girl first seen on the bridge (how far from the end)? Where was she on the bridge when the video was taken? How far the motorcyclists ride before turning around? How long did it taken them to get back to the other end of the bridge? Approximately how fast was the girl walking/jogging along the bridge?
I sure hope you have the answers to these basic questions. Otherwise, I'll have to assume you're just making stuff up.
Was she? Maybe I'll need to watch it again, but I'll wait for your replies to the questions above before I do that.
Because I can't see any good reason why I should be expected to do all the work that MR should have done before posting it in the first place. Why should I have to do his thinking for him? Why should I have to baby step him through possible explanations?
MR has a long history of clogging up our forums with pointless cut-and-pastes just like this one. He thinks that he can establish the existence of paranormal stuff simply by spamming enough video, photos and anecdotes across the forums. And in years he hasn't come to realisation that the vast majority of what he posts is next to useless as evidence of anything much.
sciforums is supposed to be an intelligent community. Dumbly watching videos and passing them on, without even thinking about their content, is the opposite of that.
How can anybody actually have an informed point of view on something if they haven't put the remotest effort into investigating the matter?
He doesn't. He can fry his brain watching endless amounts of pointless, useless youtube rubbish if he wants to. But if he's going to post something here, he ought to abide by the posting guidelines that he agreed to when he signed up.
Wrong. There is harm done by people like MR wasting everybody's time saying "Here's a thing. Prove it wrong, if you can!" It should be up to him to prove it right.
What? Do you think the Fringe sections are for uncritical fandom of the type that MR constantly exhibits? On a science forum?
Watch what happens in response to my queries about MR's claim about the girl-on-the-bridge footage from above. Almost inevitably, it will turn out that MR knows nothing about the video he posted and made claims about, other than the superficial content of the video itself.
No, this is not even logical or true. Even topics in other forums have opening posts where it's essentially an open invitation for differing points of view and opinions. If you take an interest and want to analyze and comment is not doing the work for the op. Part of engaging in a thread is that one does analyze for oneself and express their own opinion. The op does not have to cover everyone else's points of view or even research. That's what other participants are for too, if they want to.
What are you worked up about? then he/she just gave you fodder to analyze, deconstruct or agree/disagree. what is the problem with that then?
Actually he/she is not responsible for that. It's others who decide if they are wasting time or not by engaging in a thread. Many threads have zero or little replies. No one is forced to engage in a thread. When there are no participants, threads die all the time.
There is some legitimacy to the opposite stance that not everything can be disproven or it's a challenge to. so what is the problem with that? what is wrong with him challenging others to prove it wrong? these are just threads and varying forms of mental exercise or perspective anyways.
Strange because I've read MR to be quite lucid and logical in other subforum topics so he/she is not dumb. Also, it's not just intelligence that is the reason for the rules, it's also those who just abide by convention too that is allowed any pass. Anyone can do that. It's actually very easy because it's simple conformity. Do you honestly think that those who post fringe topics or ideas aren't aware of conventional reality or logic or evidence? Do you really think we don't have the ability to tow the standard line or understand what others consider evidence and the logic behind it? It's just that some are more honest about expressing speculative ideas and do not care as much if they appear to be stupid, weird, illogical or whatever. Please..
Last edited:
It's probably that MR just doesn't respect others' enough to be cordial.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You can see the figure pops up well into their riding on the bridge. You can also see them traveling a ways after the girl on the bridge. That's motorcycles travelling probably 40-50 mph? So she had to be well into the bridge from either end. How long to turn around? Probably 5 minutes at most. No girl in a flowery dress is going to make it off the bridge by the time they get back. That's why they reported this footage. If there was a good explanation for it, it wouldn't have been reported. People rule out the obvious stuff before thinking something strange is going on. That's just common sense.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
How am I disrespecting anybody? Quote it.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Wrong. It's not my job to prove photos and videos and eyewitness accounts aren't hoaxed or made up. If you are making that claim, you have to provide evidence for it. Not me. Just claiming something could be hoaxed is not evidence of anything.
Actually I have a long history of posting compelling evidence and eyewitness accounts of the paranormal and ufos that a few members here get upset about and can't debunk and so start making up excuses to infract me for and try to ban me to keep me from posting this evidence. It's basically a bunch of insecure whiners who can't debunk their own ass getting pissed at me for this stuff and so end up shooting the messenger. Like I'm somehow responsible for the existence of this evidence they want to ignore and wish desperately didn't exist. I'm simply posting on topic threads in the precise forum set aside for these kind of topics. And I'm not violating any rules in doing so.
Last edited:
I wasn't talking to you.
he/she isn't anymore rude than others on this board. If anyone thinks the likes of MR is a monster, they haven't dealt with much of the public. He/she is not that bad.
Well, I know there are far more worse people in the world. I mean bad to the bone. This is very light stuff.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You are not now, nor ever have been, a moderator here - do not assume to speak for the moderation team
Don't make lying claims about people you can't support then drive-by oneliner.That will get you infracted.
Extracts from our site posting guidelines:
E13. 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.
E15. 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.
I18. ....
Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include:
I19. Repetitive or vexatious posting is considered trolling. Sciforums reserves the right to reject contributions that have been widely canvassed in the forum and to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate the discussion.
I21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument.
I23. Propaganda can include material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, that demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include article which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an argument.
I26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.
I27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.
E13. 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.
E15. 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.
I18. ....
Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include:
- Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.
- Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
- Never attempting to justify their position.
- Demanding evidence from others while offering none in return.
- Vanishing when their bluff is called, only to reappear in a different thread arguing the same point.
- Deliberately derailing discussions onto tangential matters in order to try to control the flow of discussion.
I19. Repetitive or vexatious posting is considered trolling. Sciforums reserves the right to reject contributions that have been widely canvassed in the forum and to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate the discussion.
I21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument.
I23. Propaganda can include material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, that demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include article which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an argument.
I26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.
I27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.