exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Well then, you can sit on it and swivel, can’t you?
Video of a ghost on a rollercoaster
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The evidence of you confabulating elements of accounts is a matter of public record, documented for all to see, for all time. It's happened at least three if not four times just in the last few weeks or so, including at least once where you were forced to recant a thrice-asserted lie under threat of ban. There is no more solid proof than the publicly-accessible record.
James has repeatedly asked for clarification, whether you would prefer to be seen as a troll or as an idiot - those are the only two options ("funning is a very generous term for troling - but it's still lying") - and you have demured. I was being generous - I still prefer the term "funning", since it's a little less cynical than "trolling".
Shall we get back on topic?
Oh wait, there is no topic anymore. You've attached a video of some guy playing peek-a-boo on a roller coaster. You choose to attribute it to ghost activity. We have already measured where you set the bar for believability. I am OK with you believing that.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I guess you still got some trolling in you ...
Playground thug: "I don't report playground violence because the principal never does anything about it. Reporting playground violence is kind of chicken-shitty. Responsible, non-violent students do it all the time for example."
Such a mentality is tantamount to "snitches get stitches". People with such a mentality are people who have something to be snitched on about. You have the mentality of a criminal/thug.
House-robber: "I don't report crimes because the police never do anything about it. Reporting house-robbery is kind of chicken-shitty. Law-abiding house-owners do it all the time for example."
Playground thug: "I don't report playground violence because the principal never does anything about it. Reporting playground violence is kind of chicken-shitty. Responsible, non-violent students do it all the time for example."
This is one of the most revealing things you've ever said.
Such a mentality is tantamount to "snitches get stitches". People with such a mentality are people who have something to be snitched on about. You have the mentality of a criminal/thug.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's not what you claimed and you know it. Here's what you claimed:
Now provide evidence for that claim as Sciforum rules says or admit you're lying,
According to the riders of that rollercoaster, they said the cars are small, so it might be too difficult for an adult to crouch down. But that doesn’t mean it’s a ghost. It looks blurry like so many of these videos do, which makes them even more suspicious that they weren’t edited. Although the video looks to be of poor quality, in general. But the music is creepy. 
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
The man even said! Wow!
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
What do you think it could be?
And everyone knows ghosts come with their own creepy music.But the music is creepy.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I like the music they play in science documentaries. It makes the explanations seem so much more exciting.
Multiple riders truly saying that, who were interviewed completely independent of connection to and knowledge of this incident (i.e., uncontaminated), would certainly help a bit with respect to determining that. But the "how to come by or obtain them" intrudes...
Looking at some of the brightest shots of the empty red seats, they do give a mild impression that there isn't much room below them for a large figure to crouch down in and fully hide. But that appearance is compromised by the distance and angle from the camera's POV. Only being right there beside a cart and looking down into it would verify or not that there is sufficient space.
And some people are amazing contortionists that can fit themselves into small boxes.
(I.e., a major "not very likely" to be such an individual available in ordinary situations.)So if setting aside video editing and somebody being stunt-devil, acrobatic, and elusive enough to wait in a pre-set location on the ride framework and leap into the car when the smartphone is turned away... "Crouching" seems to be THE non-extraordinary explanation or the one that most converge on (as also exemplified in the earlier forum thread at SV). And is bolstered by the "fuzzy dark spots" incrementally becoming more prominent prior to the full-fledged occupant in the seat.
_
Did anyone else report seeing it? If there are multiple sightings, like people who rode the roller coaster at separate times all recording similar things, that would lend some credibility to paranormal activity. I think the unedited version without music, has a creepy/horror movie vibe without the “apparition.”
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Again with the pretending you don't know how to comprehend what you're reading. This just more funnin' with us.
What I stated was self-evidently an opinion. It obviously cannot be factually objective, since, as I have stated previously, I am not a mind reader. This how language comprehension works and is obvious to anyone who is not a troll or idiot.
Opinions are not lies. I actually believe that no one takes you seriously because you don't take yourself seriously, and I followed it up with my rationalization.
Your personal confusion about what telepathic abilities humans have was put at-ease - you were able to challenge whether my statement was meant to be fact, and instead of doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on it, I simply set the record straight, right up front. Like an adult.
Note how this is fundamentally different from, say, asserting that windows are "lit" - an assertion about something physical, extant and objective. When called out that you made it up, you doubled/tripled down, and that is an unequivocal lie, on record, proven that you knowingly told a falsehood. Like a not-adult.
It tickles me that you love the limelight, good or bad, enough to demand repeated references to your documented lies. Maybe I'll set up a chron job to post links to your lies every 20 posts or so. That would save you, me and everyone else a lot of effort.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Note that even this is overkill. We don't really need to explain what, exactly happened in that back seat, or why he did what it appears he did. Simply that nothing in this video falls outside mundane phenomenon.
The frame-by-frame is merely to help those struggling with mundanity to see a clear possibility.
The onus, as always, lies with the claimant of explaining why this has to have a supernatural element.
And it simply doesn't.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You made a claim that you could not back up with either evidence or reasoning. And now you're conceding it was just an opinion of yours. It is worse than just an opinion. It is a lie you're telling about someone else in a public forum in order to discredit them and what they post. And that has no place in a forum devoted to evidence and truth as I already showed. This is not your personal blog. You really shouldn't have to be told this as I think you know better. But then you DID post it so own up to it.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It was always an opinion. You have a responsibility to comprehend and deduce basic meaning and implication. Pretending you cant is not anyone else's problem.
You discredited yourself when you lied repeatedly.
Thats on-record and I am free to cite it. It is highly germane to your credibility.
I'll write up a little boilerplate that can be posted everytime you forget.
Then try some.
Correct; it's my science forum, and im working on cleaning it up. I get to do that.
I think if you're going to continue to feel like you're being treated unfairly, we should call in moderation to sort it out, for the benefit of other readers. All you have to do is continue complaining and I'll take care of it. Or please feel free to report it yourself.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
I feel like some of the tears and fuss on such threads could be avoided if Sagan's Law prevailed here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The relative probabilities of a ghostly apparition v a skinny and limber young person who can scrunch down in a seat seem pretty easy to assess. In science, when an anomaly is reported, the next step is to bring in a team to make measurements, try to reproduce the conditions under which the anomaly appeared (with superior recording equipment), eliminate mundane explanations, rule out hoax and concomitant local profit motivations for doing such, etc. When you don't have such a next step, you really only have a superficial bit of entertainment
You should be banned. You have not a shred of honesty or integrity, you are disgraceful.
Reported as bad faith arguing. Maybe if everyone who agrees that this is bad faith arguing and reports him he will get enough points to be banned. I hope so.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Do you have a better explanation than the incredible shrinking contortionist?
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Video of a figure appearing and then disappearing in a rollercoaster car is pretty extraordinary don't you think? Of course with this standard there's always room for aesthetic slipperiness. Maybe we need an objective scale measuring extraordinariness from the most mundane all the way up to the downright miraculous.
Nobody knows that ghosts don't exist. It's just not something we have epistemic access to. So when evidence for such shows up, as it has in many videos all over the world, it does not suffice to dismiss it merely because we assume it is too improbable. Nobody knows the probability of paranormal events. Being an anomaly, it is entirely unpredictable and so can happen at any time.
That would be great! At least they could rule out the shrinking contortionist hypothesis, Maybe hire a circus performer with impeccable video timing and a masochistic terror of childrens' rollercoasters. lol
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Virtually every rational person here has directed MR to Sagan's Standard a million times across dozens of threads over many years.* It could be considered SciFo's byline.
*MR, please challenge me on this number
Unfortunately, this site presupposes members will self-moderate (I believe the official term employed by our moderator was "act like grownups") and doesn't tend to silence people just for playing the fool.
Playing a fool so badly that he pretends to not understand how things that hide behind other things still exist. This is called object permanence, and toddlers learn it by about three. MR is pretending that he has the perceptive sophistication of an infant.
Dont be fooled - it's not true; he is having a laugh. Quite literally, as seen here:
The more silly his pretend arguments, the more frequent his lol. It's a predictable MO of his.
I don't discourage the ostensible naive thinking because it's fodder for the book I am writing. School children may ask naive questions, and MRs fooling around is good fodder for addressing them.
Of course, where this deviates from MR is that school children eventually learn. And of course school children eventually grow up.
Last edited: