My photo of Digit does not qualify as direct evidence. That was the whole point of this discussion. I explained this two posts ago. You conveniently ignored this point...
Because it was irrelevant: I wasn't particularly interested in examining a photo. My interest, since the start, has been in pointing out how your definition of direct evidence is meaningless. try and stay on topic.
As Digit was your only example, and you've admitted you do not actually have direct evidence of it, may I take that as your agreement?
Is it true that you deem things irrelevant when you don't want to look like a moron?
I still have direct evidence of Digit, though. You are welcome to come to my home. I know you've rejected this offer in the past, but really if that's the only way to make you shut up about your pseudo-intellectual points then I am willing to make it happen. I will even pay for your travel. The fact here is: you could not tell the difference between a shopped cat and a real picture of a cat, so you are not at all qualified to even be discussing this. You cannot determine if a photograph is faked or genuine, that much is clear,
so photographic evidence is always unsatisfactory. The fact that you "didn't want to examine" the photo just goes to show that you're making strawmen for the sake of post count and/or to look smarter than you actually are, and you are being disingenuous. Please do not bring up the "hallucination" or "conspiracy" points, because they are text-book strawman arguments. I have never mentioned anything about hallucinations or conspiracies, so please try to stay on topic with your next post.
If you knew anything about the zetetic method,
or did any research at all before gracing this forum with your insufferable presence, then you would know what we consider to be direct evidence. The answer has been under your nose this whole time. Which is why with each post you are looking more and more desperate. You should really know the source material before you try to debate points. That's debating 101.