I can't believe I actually have to say this. Look, Voldemort. The dude hates muggles and muggleborns. His ideology is based completely off of the fact that he thinks wizards are better than muggles. So it makes absolutely no sense that his symbol wouldn't be seen by muggles. If he made it so they couldn't see it because muggles outnumbered wizards, that'd be the same as admitting he was scared of them.

They can see the dark mark. The reason it's never in the paper is the Obliviation charm. And yeah, it's probably impossible to get everybody who saw it. But you don't have to get everybody. You just have to make sure you get most of them, and the people you miss will fade away.

 

Voldemort, being an immensely talented wizard can probably make the mark invisible/visible to muggles if he wants, but why he'd do what you said, I know not.

He's ready to take them out. He would, quiet easily, if there weren't other wizards, such as Dumbledore and the Order, against him. Muggles may outnumber wizards, but one fairly competent wizard can destroy an army.

Once again, why? Why would he do this? At any point in the books, is it suggested that this is what happens? He doesn't care much if muggles see the mark - if they do, they'll probably be dead in the aftermath, or obliviated by the ministry. If they remember, they'll be terrified of wizards, which suits him just fine.

Why do you keep on saying this? And diverting what resistance efforts? The only people working here are the ministry, getting everyone obliviated.

Given that muggles can see magic in general, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to see the dark mark.

 

No matter how many good reasons you may come up with for Muggles not being able to see the Dark Mark (and your reasons aren't good so far) the fact remains that none of your ideas are canon. In so far as this debate is about canon, we've seen that Muggles can see magic and we have absolutely no canon reason for thinking they wouldn't be able to.

Of course, it's possible that they can't see the Dark Mark, in some very nebulous sense of "possible". But theres no reason to think that at the present time.

 

Wasn't there something in the sixth book about astonishingly long-lasting fireworks?
I think that was a reference to a dark mark.

 

Skeen. Fine. I have been outdone. I will admit, towards the end, I was getting unsure of my own argument, but to disagree with myself without admitting defeat goes against principle. Although, to say that there is a possibility that muggles can't see the dark mark, means that there is the same chance that they can, ergo, no one has a clue.

 

No, you see, we do have a clue. Muggles can see spells. That's a pretty big clue. Just because there's a technical possibility, that Muggles can't see the Dark Mark, doesn't mean it has the same chance of being true as the possibility of Muggles being able to see it. Not when one option has no canon support whatsoever, while the other does.

 

Speaking of canon, I've always wondered how Dudley's tail removal went. Did a wizard show up and fix it later, or did he see a doctor? The medical staff must have thought it was a joke at first.

 

He went to a hospital to get it removed. Vernon says it when asked for a lift to Kings X.

 

Yeah, but surely the doctor was like WTF? Pigtail? Doesn't really matter, but it does show that transifigurations can last at least a month even when shot from a broken wand hidden in an umbrella.

 

By some of the fail-tastic logic in this thread, someone's likely to say that transfigurations last longer on Muggles...

 

Probably. Some of the people here don't seem to understand the concept of evidence within an argument.

 

Actually I don't think that idea is entirely without logic. No internal magic to resist the effect of transfiguration. It might not be cannon but I think it's actually a logical idea.

 

No, it's not.

 

Well akshully, it's not too bad an idea. It may not be cannon, but it still does have some value as an idea.

 

HAIRY MCBOONS

 

Lulz. Mega Lulz.

 

I disagree. It seems feasible to me that a persons magical ability gives them some rudimentary resistance to certain spells. Actually an example that pops into mind is the scene in Pureb The Boy Who Lived in Nuremburg where the guard tries to accio a transfiguration magazine from Grindlewald but couldn't.
Admitably it's not cannon but it is logical. Imagine that you couldn't easily use a spell like wingardium leviosa on a wizard. Transfiguration would be a similar scenario. It could shorten the duration the transfiguration holds, without active focus or it could make it slightly more difficult to perform the initial transformation.