Magical Realists Magical Reality

Status
Not open for further replies.
A holding place for all of MR's mystical, magical, alien, conspirital threads.
 
Magical Realist said:
You'll have to ask Kittamaru since he created this new thread now. I don't support his threads..
Click to expand...

Translation - I can't answer that, so I'm going to pitch a fit

tumblr_mh9kzvBGXv1s1popdo1_500.gif
 
Cosmictraveler: "It's all made up by some very creative people who can make you believe all the nonsense that you seem to believe is true but isn't."

So I never said it was real like you do with no facts to prove anything.
 
Kittamaru said:
A holding place for all of MR's mystical, magical, alien, conspirital threads.
Click to expand...

Conspiratorial.

Aren't those kind of subjects precisely what the 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' forum was created to host?

If people who start on-topic threads are going to be insulted to oblivion by board participants and their threads scrambled by moderators, merely because of the threads' heretical content, then why not delete the forum entirely?

My own view is that this forum could have quite a bit of interest and value if it was moderated competently and forum participants approached it with an open mind. There may conceivably be unknown phenomena revealing themselves in some of these reports. That would be an interesting thing to know. Even if there's nothing physical happening, the mere fact that people continue to report such things is itself an interesting psychological and sociological phenomenon. It has obvious relevance to the history of ideas, to mythology and folklore, to religious studies and to epistemology. And as is often the case, issues in the philosophy of science can be easiest to perceive on the borderline, in the problem cases.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
Conspiratorial.

Aren't those kind of subjects precisely what the 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' forum was created to host?

If people who start on-topic threads are going to be insulted to oblivion by board participants and their threads scrambled by moderators, merely because of the threads' heretical content, then why not delete the forum entirely?

My own view is that this forum could have quite a bit of interest and value if it was moderated competently and forum participants approached it with an open mind. There may conceivably be unknown phenomena revealing themselves in some of these reports. That would be an interesting thing to know. Even if there's nothing physical happening, the mere fact that people continue to report such things is itself an interesting psychological and sociological phenomenon. It has obvious relevance to the history of ideas, to mythology and folklore, to religious studies and to epistemology. As is the case in many subjects, issues in the philosophy of science are often easiest to perceive on the borderline, in the problem cases.
Click to expand...

It's just another case of Kittamaru interfering with my rights as a member here.
I reported this abuse of moderator power to James R yesterday. He said he didn't agree with it and was going to create a thread on it in the moderators forum. We'll see what happens.
 
Yazata - the issue at hand is that Mand others are posting across the forums and not adhering to any standard if evidence or discussing - basically it comes down to them expecting the rest of us to believe what they are saying despite a lack of compelling evidence, yet when counter arguments are presented, they disregard them or state them to simply be wrong without being able to even remotely show why or how... it is a disgusting double standard, one that simply will not be allowed to continue.

And yes, this is being discussed in the back room... with the overall goal of ensuring an equal and fair playing field for all involved
 
Yazata said:
Conspiratorial.

Aren't those kind of subjects precisely what the 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' forum was created to host?

If people who start on-topic threads are going to be insulted to oblivion by board participants and their threads scrambled by moderators, merely because of the threads' heretical content, then why not delete the forum entirely?

My own view is that this forum could have quite a bit of interest and value if it was moderated competently and forum participants approached it with an open mind. There may conceivably be unknown phenomena revealing themselves in some of these reports. That would be an interesting thing to know. Even if there's nothing physical happening, the mere fact that people continue to report such things is itself an interesting psychological and sociological phenomenon. It has obvious relevance to the history of ideas, to mythology and folklore, to religious studies and to epistemology. And as is often the case, issues in the philosophy of science can be easiest to perceive on the borderline, in the problem cases.
Click to expand...
Posting stuff and then doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears going "la-la-I-can't-hear-you" to anyone offering a rational, logical explanation is against the spirit of a science forum.
 
Daecon said:
Posting stuff and then doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears going "la-la-I-can't-hear-you" to anyone offering a rational, logical explanation is against the spirit of a science forum.
Click to expand...

You never offer a rational explanation. All you do is complain and gripe that the video, audio, photos, footprints, or eyewitness accounts are not evidence, when in fact it precisely IS evidence. Then you make up shit about it being a conspiratorial hoax propagated by con artists to just be famous, based on no evidence whatsoever. Then we have the usual litany of insults and flames about me being so gullible and stupid and ignorant of science. It's the same thing repeated in every thread. It's like a stuck record.
 
It's been explained to you time and time again exactly WHY that stuff CAN'T be used as evidence, yet you deliberately ignore it.

If anyone is a stuck record, it's you.
 
Daecon said:
It's been explained to you time and time again exactly WHY that stuff CAN'T be used as evidence, yet you deliberately ignore it.

If anyone is a stuck record, it's you.
Click to expand...

Don't worry - the winds of change are a blowin :)
 
Magical Realist said:
Tell that to criminal investigators and lawyers...
Click to expand...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/eyewitness.aspx
The limits of eyewitness testimony
With a wealth of research suggesting that eyewitness identifications can be unreliable, courts and juries should be cautious when they evaluate eyewitness testimony, says APA in its latest amicus briefs.

...
APA's brief explains that juries don't understand the many factors that can influence a witness's ability to accurately identify a suspect, including how much stress a witness is under, whether a weapon is present, the amount of time a witness had to look at the person, the lighting present at the time, how long it's been since someone first witnessed the crime or suggestions of guilt by police.

The power of suggestion is central in Perry v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court case for which APA filed a brief on Aug. 5. Perry addresses whether courts, in affording a defendant due process, must review the validity of all eyewitness testimony that was obtained with improperly suggestive tactics. New Hampshire requires such a review only if police or other state officials use improper tactics to obtain eyewitness identification, but not if suggestive tactics occur through happenstance. In Perry, a witness, unsolicited by police, identified the defendant after seeing him through her window standing with the police who were detaining him in handcuffs. Later, the witness was unable to describe him or pick him out of a photo lineup. Still, because the police did not sway her early identification, the court allowed it into evidence.
Click to expand...

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
Click to expand...

and

So what is an "original memory?"6 The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.
Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable—due to the reconstruction of their memory—to reconsider their initial understanding. When a witness identifies a person in a line-up, he is likely to identify that same person in later line-ups, even when the person identified is not the perpetrator. Although juries and decision-makers place great reliance on eyewitness identification, they are often unaware of the danger of false memories.
Click to expand...

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigat...012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
Is Eyewitness Testimony Inherently Unreliable?
By Aileen P. Clare – May 28, 2012

To those who follow crime and courts, the stories are familiar and unnerving. Cornelius Dupree spent 30 years imprisoned in Texas for a 1979 rape and robbery he did not commit, largely due to a single eyewitness identification. He was freed in 2011 through new DNA evidence. Derrick Williams of Florida was freed through DNA evidence after spending 18 years in prison for a rape based on eyewitness misidentification. Johnny Pinchback, a Texas inmate convicted of a 1984 rape based on eyewitness misidentification, was freed through DNA testing after 27 years in prison. Alvin Jardine was freed through DNA testing after serving 20 years jailed in Hawaii, again due to eyewitness misidentification. Of the 21 cases on the Innocence Network’s 2011 exoneration report, 19 wrongful convictions involved eyewitness testimony. Innocence Network Report, 2011. This is consistent with statistics showing that more than three-quarters of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence relied on faulty eyewitness evidence.
Click to expand...

It doesn't get much simpler, MR - Eye Witness testimony is only as accurate as human memory... and human memory is inherently flawed.
 
Daecon said:
You mean the people who prefer physical evidence such as real bodies and DNA that can be actually verified as belonging to a specific individual, let alone species?
Click to expand...

No..I mean the people who solve and win cases everyday based on video evidence, audio evidence, photo evidence, footprint evidence, and eyewitness evidence. IOW, all the things you claim are not evidence.
 
Well we have no doubt that Humans exist, which is why CCTV footage, photos and footprints of Humans is rather mundane.

Bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist, so evidence for such an extraordinary claim is going to have to be much more extraordinary than a single video and claims of "because I said so".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top