posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:26 PM
Unfortunately, that doesn't fall into the realm of proof -- merely anecdotal information. My motivation is not whether I want to believe it's real
or not, it's to determine whether it is real or not. Your facts are inconsistent with facts that can be checked (such as the assertion that it was
produced by Nippon TV, but bears the incorrect logo used by NTV at the time). In a more recent post, you're stating that it was shown on Japanese
television and the narrator said it was a reconstruction or "labelled" it a reconstruction. What's your source of information?
Please understand that what I'm trying to do is to be fair and conclusive, rather than accept vague assertions as proof. If I was trying to convince
you that the video was real, you would require rather extraordinary proof, right? You're claiming the video is false. To be fair to all sides, I
think that your claim should be easier to back-up and, therefore, you should be required to point to a source that provides evidence to support your
statement. Too many debunkers require impossible levels of proof for claims of the paranormal, but fail to realize that their attempts to debunk are
based totally on hearsay, conjecture, and anecdotal information. This isn't good enough. All claims should be proven or disproven based on actual
evidence. If not, then they should remain open for discussion until proven true or false.