Zork

More lies! Chang doesn't speak English. Magus of Java is what Chang might have said distorted by two intermediaries, the translator to english and then Kostas himself. So instead of taking everything in there with a grain of salt and assume it is all false until proven otherwise, you believe it is all true until proven false.

@MegaMind Do you even read your sources? https://kodsiengineering.com/using-video-evidence-in-accident-reconstruction/ What is derived from the above is that one video footage isn't reliable by itself.

You keep quoting the same nonsense and i tell you that video is not objective. You don't understand what constitutes proof. Quotes from random sites are not proof. This is from https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-video-surveillance-is-used-in-personal-injury-cases-38998 As you can see the reliability of video in court is not guaranteed. Also note how many times the words "may be used" comes up in your link when talking about video footage. Why does that happen? Because there is no such thing as an objective video and video is not infallible or uncontested.

There is no such thing as an objective video. That is why here the one taking the vid must testify in court under oath. One needs to explain the circumstances and the context in court otherwise it is not acceptable at all. Which is what "Magus of Java" is.

No you are making false distinctions. Both incidents happen live on camera. Say i shoplift and then change my mind and put it back. Owner shows only the vid of me shoplifting and i get convicted. How do isolated incidents become proof all of a sudden? Unless one has access to the whole picture he only holds a fraction of the truth which is insufficient to produce any meaningful argument. That is why video isn't accepted as proof in court here. It needs to be considered in context with the accusation leveled against someone.

So evidence depends on context not on the incident being showed?

so engineers are not scientists huh? By the way the guy did what he could to rule out fraud. He checked for wires.

I remember this vid. What you say is true. The man is an engineer IIRC. Here is your "evidence" @MegaMind

If you live in the US then it is you who have the strange legal system with the most wrongful convictions in the world.

What abilities have you (megamind) observed as a result of practice? I won't tell you where i live. Video isn't accepted as proof here. For good reason.

No it isn't. This is a fact where i live.

So according to the WMP crowd the following vid is evidence Anyone involved in the incidents can lie about it and say it is real. You really have no way to figure out based on your very irregular criteria on what constitutes proof/evidence.

Video is neither a fact, nor a sign, nor an object. Star wars is also on video. Is it a fact? Is it a sign? Is it an object? (is it a bird?, is it a plane?) So you just admitted you have no evidence.

Chang isn't part of your school. Jim and his students are. You have nothing to show. Video is subjective by definition because it only records the point of view of the camera holder. So many tricks depend on camera. Lies again. It is never mentioned in the article. The title is " In 2124, half of all men can count on developing prostate cancer " Where the hell does it say "ALL MEN" meaning all men in existence?

Then you can claim his 1.000.000 dollar bet easily. Why don't you go ahead? Maybe because you have NOTHING to demonstrate? You really have no clue do you? As an example, Copperfield had managed to avoid mugging by sleight of hand. He convinced the thief that he had no wallet while he searched him around. How the hell would you see past that? No it isn't. As i said it is a phenomenon because it satisfies the "not understood" clause.

By the same account, Criss Angel is very powerful qigong user. Why don't you visit him to learn? Stop the lying and playing around with words. Video isn't evidence. a fact or an event in nature or society, especially one that is not fully understood https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/phenomenon?q=phenomenon What you have on vid is a phenomenon. Not evidence.

No he doesn't. This is proof that you have 0 (zero, zilch, Nada, Kaput) to show for your years of dabbling.

I provided a link from a very respectable institution that says the same thing: what causes prostate cancer isn't conclusive. LIAR! The link says "MOST men" not "All men"!!!!!!! The link needs a login and the quote doesn't specify if it is talking about malignant tumors or not. You can live a full life with an enlarged prostate with few problems. What JIm, Kostas and Chang have is MALIGNANT PROSTATE CANCER. Which is different from the lies that what you are selling us here.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/prostate-cancer/symptoms-causes/syc-20353087

Video isn't objective and it isn't evidence period. Copperfield and Criss Angel can do terrific things on stage and can fool scientists. Stop using moronic arguments. You are claiming that you are not infallible yet you blindly follow a video with no evidence to back it up just some words from some guys who met the guy in the vid but can't display the same powers.

He is asking for specific observations of phenomena during YOUR practice.

NO this is completely wrong! Yale center never says that you are guaranteed to get it. Many centenarians have never been diagnosed with prostate cancer. My late father was full of metastatic cancer but didn't have prostate cancer. Never use false information to justify side effects from practice.

For the last time you don't know what can be labeled as an experiment. This isn't an experiment. It is the observation of a phenomenon. Experimentation comes next by repeating the preconditions of the observed phenomenon many times in a controlled environment to produce statistically significant deviations from the norm. What you have isn't evidence.

Completely false. It is common but not guaranteed.

Why is that? Not ironic, genuinely curious.