Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Four decades of The Mothman

49 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

papageorge1
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

I see you didn't even read anything I posted. 

Here's a short bit for you...

Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson appeared on a live TV discussion about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. He was later arrested, placed in a lineup and identified by a victim as the man who had raped her. The police charged Thomson although the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV. They dismissed his alibi that he was in plain view of a TV audience and in the company of the other discussants, including an assistant commissioner of police. The policeman taking his statement sneered, "Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and the Queen of England, too." Eventually, the investigators discovered that the rapist had attacked the woman as she was watching TV - the very program on which Thompson had appeared. Authorities eventually cleared Thomson. The woman had confused the rapist's face with the face that she had seen on TV. (Baddeley, 2004).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOku3RqKHRAhWlzIMKHfRDCOMQFggtMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualexpert.com%2FResources%2Feyewitnessmemory.html&usg=AFQjCNFvKOj49uRxgPBU6uX0nExxmM9kjw

Now this doesn't even get into how our senses can lie to us and how we can be mistaken about what we're seeing. Or how our psyches can play with us. I believe that many of the people saw something. It's just far more likely that they saw a big owl. People don't realize how huge birds of prey are until they see one up close. And at night, already with subconscious fears from the other stories they had heard...it's entirely possible that a typical owl could become the dreaded "Mothman." 

What are you saying above that is different from what I am saying? Eyewitness testimony should be neither blindly accepted nor blindly dismissed. I think you would agree that our eyes are usually quite reliable or humans would have gone extinct a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
papageorge1
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

I see you didn't even read anything I posted. 

Here's a short bit for you...

Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson appeared on a live TV discussion about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. He was later arrested, placed in a lineup and identified by a victim as the man who had raped her. The police charged Thomson although the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV. They dismissed his alibi that he was in plain view of a TV audience and in the company of the other discussants, including an assistant commissioner of police. The policeman taking his statement sneered, "Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and the Queen of England, too." Eventually, the investigators discovered that the rapist had attacked the woman as she was watching TV - the very program on which Thompson had appeared. Authorities eventually cleared Thomson. The woman had confused the rapist's face with the face that she had seen on TV. (Baddeley, 2004).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOku3RqKHRAhWlzIMKHfRDCOMQFggtMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualexpert.com%2FResources%2Feyewitnessmemory.html&usg=AFQjCNFvKOj49uRxgPBU6uX0nExxmM9kjw

Now this doesn't even get into how our senses can lie to us and how we can be mistaken about what we're seeing. Or how our psyches can play with us. I believe that many of the people saw something. It's just far more likely that they saw a big owl. People don't realize how huge birds of prey are until they see one up close. And at night, already with subconscious fears from the other stories they had heard...it's entirely possible that a typical owl could become the dreaded "Mothman." 

What are you saying above that is different from what I am saying? Eyewitness testimony should be neither blindly accepted nor blindly dismissed. I think you would agree that our eyes are usually quite reliable or humans would have gone extinct a long time ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

What are you saying above that is different from what I am saying? Eyewitness testimony should be neither blindly accepted nor blindly dismissed. I think you would agree that our eyes are usually quite reliable or humans would have gone extinct a long time ago.

And you're blindly accepting it. Personal accounts and eyewitness testimony have been proven to be unreliable because memory is unreliable and our senses are often unreliable. Despite these facts, you are 80% certain that the Mothman is real because a number of people have claimed to have seen it. And you think you're being smart.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

And you're blindly accepting it. Personal accounts and eyewitness testimony have been proven to be unreliable because memory is unreliable and our senses are often unreliable. Despite these facts, you are 80% certain that the Mothman is real because a number of people have claimed to have seen it. And you think you're being smart.

If I was blindly accepting wouldn't I be 100% sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Butler
27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Your arguments are getting old. 

The feeling is mutual.  Ironic too, that you follow with your dogma. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
15 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

If I was blindly accepting wouldn't I be 100% sure?

Why are you even 80% sure when the only thing you have is personal accounts? That is blindly accepting. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

Why are you even 80% sure when the only thing you have is personal accounts? That is blindly accepting. 

I hope you can see your own logical error by equating an 80% chance with blindly accepting.

Are you saying people see things correctly 0% of the time?? How have we survived?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I hope you can see your own logical error by equating an 80% chance with blindly accepting.

Are you saying people see things correctly 0% of the time?? How have we survived?

 

There's no reason to believe something as ludicrous as a giant moth man when all you have to go on are personal accounts. End of story. And you think you're being smart by doing so. 

I'm finished with you because you are obviously unreachable by reason. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

There's no reason to believe something as ludicrous as a giant moth man when all you have to go on are personal accounts. End of story. And you think you're being smart by doing so. 

We do not know the limits of the paranormal, we are learning.

4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

 I'm finished with you because you are obviously unreachable by reason. 

I am pleased with the first half of that sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
On 1/1/2017 at 11:15 AM, papageorge1 said:

If I was blindly accepting wouldn't I be 100% sure?

Not necessarily, no. Your blind acceptance stems from the fact that you use other people's accounts (eye witness testimony) as "evidence". when it is anything but. 

I agree with The Butler, as I have seen you comment about what people claim they saw as factual evidence, when there is absolutely nothing to substantiate it. This is blind acceptance. The fact that you claim to only be 80% as far as the Mothman goes, is either you trying to validate any claim of skepticism or the rational part of your brain trying to not let you go full PCN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, MstrMsn said:

Not necessarily, no. Your blind acceptance stems from the fact that you use other people's accounts (eye witness testimony) as "evidence". when it is anything but. 

I agree with The Butler, as I have seen you comment about what people claim they saw as factual evidence, when there is absolutely nothing to substantiate it. This is blind acceptance. The fact that you claim to only be 80% as far as the Mothman goes, is either you trying to validate any claim of skepticism or the rational part of your brain trying to not let you go full PCN.

You are not understanding the word evidence: eyewitness evidence is evidence but not proof as there can be lying/hallucination/misidentification/etc.. But eyewitness evidence is evidence to consider ('consider' means neither blindly accepting nor blindly dismissing).

I seem to have to keep repeating this on this forum. What about the above does not make sense to you guys here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
On 1/1/2017 at 10:12 AM, papageorge1 said:

What are you saying above that is different from what I am saying? Eyewitness testimony should be neither blindly accepted nor blindly dismissed. I think you would agree that our eyes are usually quite reliable or humans would have gone extinct a long time ago.

Yet you blindly accept all eyewitness testimony as evidence, without even analyzing dubious reports. From an objective viewpoint, eyewitness testimony should not even be considered based on its unreliability.

Edited by Carnoferox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
8 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Yet you blindly accept all eyewitness testimony as evidence, without even analyzing dubious reports. From an objective viewpoint, eyewitness testimony should not even be considered based on its unreliability.

I am afraid you totally missed my point and it appears hopeless for me to re-explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
48 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You are not understanding the word evidence: eyewitness evidence is evidence but not proof as there can be lying/hallucination/misidentification/etc.. But eyewitness evidence is evidence to consider ('consider' means neither blindly accepting nor blindly dismissing).

I seem to have to keep repeating this on this forum. What about the above does not make sense to you guys here?

Actually, no, that's not evidence. You need to actually read the definition and maybe get someone to explain it to you in a way that you can comprehend it.

Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'. 

 "circumstantial evidence" (which is what supposed eyewitness testimony of Mothman, aliens and Bigfoot is) is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact (which fails to lead to a conclusion of fact, which is why we keep telling you that it is not evidence).

The part that doesn't make sense to us is we know what IS evidence, and what is not, yet you seem incapable of grasping that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
6 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

Actually, no, that's not evidence. You need to actually read the definition and maybe get someone to explain it to you in a way that you can comprehend it.

Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'. 

 "circumstantial evidence" (which is what supposed eyewitness testimony of Mothman, aliens and Bigfoot is) is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact (which fails to lead to a conclusion of fact, which is why we keep telling you that it is not evidence).

The part that doesn't make sense to us is we know what IS evidence, and what is not, yet you seem incapable of grasping that.

"Evidence" from Wikipedia

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
19 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am afraid you totally missed my point and it appears hopeless for me to re-explain.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

ChaosRose posted this in post #22. There are quite a few other articles that support the fact that EWT is not totally reliable. You really might want to look into this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

"Evidence" from Wikipedia

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

" intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact" is the LEGAL definition of Circumstantial Evidence, not from wiki (which isn't the most reliable source of information, btw).

Your own post states "direct proof of the truth of an assertion". Eyewitness testimony is not direct proof, nor is it the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, MstrMsn said:

"direct proof of the truth of an assertion".

How creatively you clipped that sentence^_^.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

How creatively you clipped that sentence^_^.

 

I could have added the entire post, but doing so would have been a waste of both time and energy. I could have made it bold, but you would have made a similar, if not the same comment.

Taking the entirety of what you copied and pasted, or just the little portion that I did does not invalidate what I said, nor does it actually support your claim that you know what evidence is.

Spin it all you want, deflect and ignore. That's what a troll does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AdealJustice

80% is about 30% too much. Unsure would probably be the best position to take on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, MstrMsn said:

I could have added the entire post, but doing so would have been a waste of both time and energy. I could have made it bold, but you would have made a similar, if not the same comment.

Taking the entirety of what you copied and pasted, or just the little portion that I did does not invalidate what I said, nor does it actually support your claim that you know what evidence is.

Spin it all you want, deflect and ignore. That's what a troll does.

It was just one sentence that said The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
14 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It was just one sentence that said The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

 

Again, wiki is not a reliable source, it doesn't even use a dictionary to give the definition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
On 1/4/2017 at 10:42 AM, MstrMsn said:

Again, wiki is not a reliable source, it doesn't even use a dictionary to give the definition.

 

But you forget that we're now living in Bizarro World, where The National Enquirer should get a Pulitzer.

*facepalm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

But you forget that we're now living in Bizarro World, where The National Enquirer should get a Pulitzer.

*facepalm*

Well, they could get one in fiction.... B)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.