Iliketurtles

2. I am referring to what most reasonable people would accept as evidence. Video is able to capture evidence in a way that personal testimony can never hope to match. This doesn't have to happen in a court room at all. Ultimately if you ran a red light and say you did not, but my drive cam shows otherwise I can convince most reasonable people you are either lying or misremember the events. If I decided to have an affair and you had a private investigator film me meeting up with my mistress and going into her apartment, if you took this video to my SO I would get divorced no matter what my personal testimony to her was. In that instance my SO would be justified and reasonable in believing my personal testimony was not accurate. So let's please stop arguing about this because at this point it's getting silly. 3. Written personal testimony can be a lie, and datasets can be altered to support that lie. e.g. fat makes you fat, sugar does not, as paid for by the sugar industry. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

To give another example, when our government releases thermal imagining taken from F18 hornets of UFOS showing objects travelling faster than anything we have ever built, that do not have wings, exhaust, or any visibly discernible means of propulsion. I accept that is valid evidence for the existence of UFOS.

Let's say someone travels a house that is rumored to be haunted. They bring along along a physicist, and several other PhDs in relevant fields to run the equipment. They capture crystal clear footage of what appears to be a ghost on video, audio, and thermal imaging. I personally would accept this as good evidence for the existence of ghosts. Ultimately there really isn't anything more that could be done short of you being there directly in person to witness the event occur first hand. Certainly a hoax may have occurred, but making a best case effort to document it is all we can do.

1, All evidence can be tampered with and altered. 2. I am confident that if your personal testimony is that you did not run that red light, and my drive cam shows different that I will win in court and you will lose. If you want to maintain that personal testimony both oral and written are superior then you are welcome to your opinion. All I can tell you is that I believe firmly video recording is superior to personal testimony, cops believe this, banks believe this, people with drive cams believe this, and every store owner with a security camera set up also believes this. If you feel that human memory captures minute details better, is less fallible, not subject to cognitive and personal biases, not subject to lying, and that video is inferior that certainly is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I don't think me continuing to ramble on is going to change your mind. 3. A written account of what someone did is written personal testimony. I will concede though, that having multiple other researchers stand up and give their personal testimony that they were able to confirm is more reassuring, and the more that confirm the better I would feel about accepting personal testimony. Video however of the studies being carried out would be something I would very much value to witness.

I think this is pretty simple and clear cut. If I show someone who thinks the earth is flat live footage from the international space station and they claim it was doctored and fake then nothing is proven to them. Proof by definition is evidence that compels a mind to accept it as true. If a person refuses to accept the evidence, then nothing is proven to them. Also video most certainly can serve as proof to anyone who accepts it as real and accurate. As a specific example of this, I personally accept live footage from the International Space Station as proof the earth is round. I would also accept drive cam footage as proof if a person stated they did not run a red light. Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

As you point out it is not possible to force someone to accept evidence of something as proof, we can only do the best we can. I personally would prefer video of an event occurring than personal testimony from witnesses. Human memory is certainly fallible, personal testimony is parsed through filters of cognitive biases and agendas, people can and do lie. Video too can be manipulated, as can the raw data as you put it, any form of evidence can. If you feel personal testimony, both oral and written are superior forms of evidence then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Video is superior to personal testimony. Human memory is fallible, and recollections get parsed through their unique biases. Video allows for us to see more of an event without the fallibility of human memory, and without these cognitive biases which are present in personal testimony. Certainly it is not foolproof, I am only arguing it is better than personal testimony, both oral and written. Video can be manipulated, but people can and do distort the truth, and misremember occurrences, and even lie. Ultimately there is no form of evidence which cannot be altered or doctored, and we are forced to do the best we can.

I think you nailed it on the head here. There is no such thing as a universal proof which is so powerful it can compel any and all minds to accept it as true. It can always be argued that something was missed, or some evidence was fabricated, or that the testimony is false. Ultimately we can only do the best we can do, make the best case we can and people will either accept or reject it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact By definition to prove something as true to someone else, they must accept the evidence as true. If they do not accept the evidence as proof, then it is not proof, at least not to them. A flat earth supporter can deny the reality of a live feed from the international space station and reject the evidence as a hoax, and nothing is proven, at least not to them. The unfortunate reality is that you cannot prove something to someone who is unwilling to accept the evidence as true.

ChronoTrigger.

Right after you wake up and are completely well rested is the best time imho. If you are hungry eat a very light meal just enough to keep the stomach pangs away, eating too much will make you drowsy.

I believe that you can make a solid case for something on video (which is superior to oral or written testimony), in a controlled environment, with professionals present to make a best case effort to ensure no funny business is going on. However, proof requires the other party to accept it before anything get's proven, by definition. It's not possible to prove the earth is round even with live feeds from the ISS, at least not to people who refuse to accept the evidence. That doesn't mean it isn't important to try your best anyway. It's important to keep fighting the good fight IMHO.

One strange thing I notice, is the stronger the evidence the more people reject it. The weaker the evidence the more they embrace it. I never really figured out how that one works.

So, I am not a UFO guy. I can't stand ancient aliens, and I can't stand talking to UFO "believers". I am however curious as to what all this is about. Top government officials appear to be engaging in slow drip disclosure of UFOS. Congress is so concerned about this that senator Gillibrand's UAP amendment passed requiring the military and intelligence agencies report such encounters to congress. https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/gillibrands-groundbreaking-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-amendment-included-in-final-ndaa_ Here are a few officially declassified videos from the official CNBC youtube channel:

Sporin

Actually, the group I am a part of is working on releasing an invention which minimizes the amount of time required. I would argue that there are short cuts.

Everything above comes from top intelligence officials, official reports, and official declassified videos. It appears disclosure is actually happening.

Watch it. Thank me later.

Mellon, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, and was on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee: https://www.christophermellon.net/post/don-t-dismiss-the-alien-hypothesis We can no longer deny that someone has mastered technology beyond our understanding and is using it to monitor U.S. military forces and probably much else. In some cases, such as the famous encounters of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, non-human origin is presently the theory that best fits all the facts.

60 Minutes from their official youtube channel: Lue Elizondo, former U.S. Military official that led the U.S. government’s effort to investigate UAP: “Imagine a technology that can do 600-to-700 g-forces, that can fly at 13,000 miles an hour, that can evade radar and that can fly through air and water and possibly space. And oh, by the way, has no obvious signs of propulsion, no wings, no control surfaces and yet still can defy the natural effects of Earth’s gravity. That’s precisely what we’re seeing.” Chris Mellon, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, and was on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “… these vehicles seem to have unlimited loiter time, which we don’t have. We’re limited in terms of altitude, it’s hard to design something that functions well at ground level that can go, 60,000 or 80,000 feet and then drop down to the deck or drop to 20,000 feet. And you know, and it’s like a straight vertical line … in seconds. … Then the acceleration is beyond any, far beyond anything that we, that we’re capable of … There’s nothing we could build that would be strong enough to endure that amount of force and acceleration.”

Andre Carson (Member Intelligence Committee): "This technology seems to be defying our understanding of physics. Next part is breaking down the stigma“ https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/qkevqf/andre_carson_member_intelligence_committee_this/

https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/qe2b8a/woah_nasa_chief_bill_nelson_talks_ufos_uaps_and/ Video of NASA administrator saying it's real, and we hope that it's not Russia or China or another country with this advanced technology.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf This is the UAP report from the Pentagon acknowledging UFOS actually exist, and possess advanced technology with signature management. ... And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology ... Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. UAP THREATEN FLIGHT SAFETY AND, POSSIBLY, NATIONAL SECURITY ... demonstrate a breakthrough aerospace technology by a potential adversary. ... UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security. ... potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology.