Is fiction a reliable type of evidence?

It's hard to say they are reliable. While some past life evidence stories seem very convincing, there is no scientific method that can fully prove that they are real accounts of past lives. There are often alternative explanations such as psychological factors or coincidence. For example, a person might seem to recall a past life event but it could be a result of a vivid dream influenced by something they experienced in their current life.

Political cartoons can offer some insights but aren't always completely reliable. They often present a simplified or exaggerated view of events.

No. Photos can be easily doctored or misinterpreted. There are many software tools nowadays that can create fake supernatural elements in pictures. Also, natural phenomena like light glares, fog, or camera malfunctions might be mistaken for ghostly apparitions in photos.

One way is to cross - check the story with other sources. If multiple people tell similar stories, it adds more credibility. For example, in historical research, if different accounts from different witnesses or diaries match up, the evidence becomes stronger. Another way is to look for consistency within the story itself. If the details don't contradict each other, it's more reliable. Also, trying to find objective facts within the story can help. If a story mentions a specific date or location that can be verified, it makes the overall evidence more trustworthy.

Well, when a conclusion is drawn from the story's evidence, it's reliable because that evidence has been presented within the context of the narrative. It's not just a random guess but something supported by what's happened in the story. Also, if the evidence is consistent and makes logical sense, the conclusion is more likely to stand up.

The main new evidence is from improved fossil analysis. Scientists are now able to extract more information from megalodon teeth and bones. For example, they can study the chemical composition to understand what the megalodon ate. Another type of new evidence comes from advanced geological studies. By looking at the layers of rock where megalodon fossils are found, they can determine the time period more accurately and also understand the environmental conditions at that time.

Fiction. Consider this, in all of our exploration of the oceans, which is still not complete but quite extensive, we have not found any conclusive evidence of mermaids. The idea of a half - human, half - fish creature goes against the known biological principles. For a mermaid to exist as commonly depicted, it would require a very strange and unlikely combination of mammalian and fish - like characteristics that have no basis in evolutionary biology.

Well, cryptozoology is often seen as fictional. Most of the supposed creatures it investigates lack reliable proof and are more the stuff of myths and legends.

Fact. There has been new evidence emerging over time that supports the existence of megalodon in the past. Fossil records are a major part of this evidence. These fossils show the large size of their teeth and some skeletal remains which give us an idea of their massive size and structure. Also, studies on ancient ocean ecosystems suggest that an apex predator like megalodon could have thrived in those conditions.

It's hard to say. Sometimes the information on the Truth or Fiction website can be trustworthy, but other times it might be misleading. So, approach it with caution and do your own research.