[Boogieman]

“I never said that: but then, it’s always easier to rebut what somebody didn’t say.”

Put the whole sentence from the quote in there if you are going to claim it’s not accurate:

“If you want to believe everything that someone says they saw, with no corroborating evidence, then that is your prerogative.”

You have been arguing that I should accept the testimony of these witnesses, with no corroborating evidence, haven’t you?

If not, then what are you going on about, exactly? You made a dispute with a figure of speech referencing what type of evidence, ordinary or extraordinary, should be required to confirm a claim. Yet, nobody has even produced any ordinary evidence to confirm this claim.

[ZX12R]

Yet, nobody has even produced any ordinary evidence to confirm this claim.

Claims or opinions cannot be evidence, it is merely conjecture, and completely useless in determining what is real and what is not. Demons possessing people, kids walking on ceilings, etc. None of that exists, only the claims exist.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"You have been arguing that I should accept the testimony of these witnesses, with no corroborating evidence, haven’t you?"

No.(!!)

I am assuming youm mean "admit it into evidence," not "regfard it as irrefutable proof."

I have been saying you should not reject eyewitness testimony out of hand. I did say, "Using evidence, follow the possible chains of necessary and sufficient causes and effects, and see where they lead."

Eyewitness testimony from several parties whose testimony agrees, especially from people with no benefit to be gained from their claim, is ordinary evidence. To reject it out of hand is bias. If you see that, then we have no disagreement.