Iliketurtles

I think ultimately what this argument boils down to is nothing proves anything. If someone doesn't accept the evidence available to to them, nothing gets proven. Considering the alternatives, video is as good as it gets, despite its drawbacks. Just my $0.02

If you were required to do so under law, and were not given a choice. How would you provide better evidence?

So gathering a team of scientists and doctors who do their best to rule out fraud, and recording the event on video. Could you create better evidence personally if required to do so? If so how?

We can only do the best we can do. Recording events occur on video with professionals present to do their best to rule out fraud, unfortunately is the best we can do. Maybe in the future when AI takes over it will study and record in minute detail every angle of every human experience and interaction and be able to settle debates for us.

So what other evidence would you accept?

As a question if you were able to spot what appeared to be real UFOs or UAPs on a regular basis, how would you gather evidence to support your and others personal testimony? If not video then what other options would you have available to you?

There is need as we need to compare the alternatives here. Capturing an event on video is better than the alternative of personal testimony of the event. First hand observation may be best, but how would I bring a first hand observation of a car accident to court? I would be limited to personal testimony and video to make my case. While first hand observation may be best to convince you personally, how do you beam your memories of an event to someone else?

The reasons that video is superior to personal testimony is it the camera is an impartial observer it doesn't have an agenda and it doesn't have bias and it doesn't have filters it just records what it records. Granted video evidence can be tampered with as can any other form of evidence but this is a limitation of evidence itself not a criticism of video.

There is a reason that people buy dash cams and that is to prevent he said she said situations if they're in an accident. They can prove that someone else ran the stop sign or red light they can prove that someone else slammed on the brakes in front of them. Police also use body cams to protect themselves from false accusations. Banks also use cameras in the event of a robbery they can document exactly what happened as it happened. Many store owners use cameras as well for this reason. I agree with you that there are limitations to video in that it can be faked but that limitation applies to every other form of evidence also people can lie in their personal testimony and they do and all other forms of evidence can also be faked.

If recording a random video and posting it on YouTube proved anything then Criss Angel would be a miracle worker. Ultimately we have personal testimony which can come orally and in written form and then we have video. Having a team of professionals present to do their best to rule out fraud occurring and then recording that on video so that you don't have to take their word on what they saw and what they experienced is about as good as we can do. I agree that it's not very good. It's just better than taking someone's word that something occurred or rather they're written or oral personal testimony. Unfortunately though this is the best that we can do due to the limitations of evidence itself. If you disagree then certainly you disagree.

There seems to be some confusion here. Filming random youtube videos doesn't constitute good evidence not by a long shot. Bringing in professionals who give it their very best effort to rule out fraud occurring and recording that demonstration and observational study that does. Also the end goal is not to recruit "suggestible" individuals. Also with that thread you'll get nothing but confirmation bias because of your wording.

To be honest it isn't really important to me if you take anything I say seriously or not. I'm simply telling you I'm not going to make claims that I'm not willing to back up. In this instance if a person did a demonstration like this it would only stand to hurt them just like it did John. Still today people accuse John and the other party's present of using chemicals for that demonstration. There are better more convincing demonstrations than the one you're asking about. If you're not interested then you're not interested. Respectfully I'm bowing out.

If the end goal is to convince people this is real it is not practical to do in person demonstrations for each of them. Short of that documenting things on video with professionals present is as good as can be done.

Doing demonstrations is extremely time and money intensive. There needs to be a clear payoff for doing a demonstration. That payoff would be convincing a serious person to pursue the practice. Short of in-person demonstrations, video of observational studies done with professionals present is as good as it gets.

As I explained earlier when you ask a question like can you do x? If you admit to being able to do something that obligates you to prove it as the burden of proof will rest solely on you. It does not make sense to do demonstrations for something which won't convince anyone and for which everyone will assume a fraud or a hoax is occurring. What makes more sense in my opinion is to stick to demonstrations which are more convincing and might have the opportunity to convince a skeptic. There are those who will be willing to do demonstrations for skeptics in private in hopes that it may be enough to convince them to seriously pursue the practice.

Ultimately all evidence can be faked. Ultimately all personal testimony either oral or written can misrepresent the situation or be a complete falsehood. We can only do the best we can do to document a situation. Video allows for certain dimensions of evidence that oral and written testimony do not allow for. Video captures what happens as a third party observer which is unbiased and the recollection that video provides to others does so without bias filters and the fallibility of human memory. Obviously video can be faked and edited just as any other form of evidence can be. Obviously personal testimony can be lies and deception. Like I said we can only do the best we can do. This is been rehashed and you've beaten this horse until the glue factory will not take it so please let's drop it and move on.

We've had this exact conversation more times than I care to count. Personal testimony, oral and written doesn't make something true. Video does allow for a "truer" recollection of events, without the biases and filters, and fallibility of human memory. It records what happened exactly as it happened and no one is required to take someone else's word for it. Even video combined with published studies however wouldn't sway peoples minds. It would always be because of the chemicals. There are far better demonstrations, which would be much more convincing to skeptics. Assuming your end goal is to convince skeptics of the reality of this, then it's best to stick to demonstrations which might have a chance of doing so. Just my $0.02

Answering yes or no creates a problem.

The idea is to perform a demonstration which can convince skeptics. John demonstrates lighting paper on fire and it's always an argument about chemicals being used. Even with controls you won't convince a skeptic this way. There are better options.

Don't assume. The only reason someone should pursue mopai is because they cannot find a reasonable facsimile.

A demonstration of lighting paper on fire will simply result in claims of chemicals being used. A person who claims to be able to do this has the burden of proof placed upon them to demonstrate it. Seeing as answering yes would put their king in check, it wouldn't be wise to make such a claim. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play and this is such an instance.

One of his students posted a YouTube video of a siddhi. He was offered an extremely large amount of money to replicate it under controlled conditions, in private with no cameras. He refused. Caveat emptor. As to your question the burning of paper isn't going to convince a skeptic because they can and will claim chemicals were used. There are other and more convincing demonstrations that can be done that can be better quantified and studied.

It's not a can of worms I care to open.

In my opinion there are more convincing demonstrations. If it would help win over a skeptic there are some who are willing to help them get the evidence they need without charging them any money. That's all I can say here on that matter.

I agree that you need a teacher to help you. I also agree that it can be dangerous if you are not diligent to the point of obsession. Fire demands respect, and if you play around you will be burned. It is possible to treat fire with respect, work with it every day and never be burned by it, but that requires constant diligence, and respect. Few people are serious enough to avoid being burned, because they want to explore and improve things, ergo they want to play with fire. John had many students, and those students took students of their own to keep the knowledge alive that's how it's worked since time immemorial. Also I and others have explored every other option that's been presented to us as best we can and not found a reasonable facsimile yet. As far as Kostas I would like to offer you my perspective. In the circle of people I associate with we have seen far more drama than you can imagine, certainly far more than has been made public here on this forum. Jerry Springer aint got nuthin on us. People who feel entitled to and demand we give them our time and energy, and if we don't they threaten us and do whatever they can whenever they can however they can. Delusional people who think they can fly in the sky and shoot fireballs, yes they really said this. All kinds of narcissistic, and sociopathic behaviors. It is hard not to be jaded and continue to offer your hand in friendship to the general public when your fingers keep getting bitten. I am certain Kostas has seen far more crazy than those I associate with have, and is probably far more jaded as well. It is clear when he wrote the books he was projecting and assumed there were other reasonable people like himself out there who would come together to study and seriously explore this practice. As time progressed he realized just how much crazy is on the internet, and how hard it is to find reasonable and down to earth people who want to pursue things like this. It seems to me he's closed his heart off, and given up on this dream of community with like minded people. I believe he is actively doing whatever he can now to dissuade people from pursuing mo pai as a result of his experiences. That's just my perspective on this situation, take it with a grain of salt.