.

[MegaMind]

1 minute ago, Zork said:

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.

 

The magus of Java is a record of what John said to Kosta, if it is true we have no way of knowing.

 

Police wear body cams to avoid "he said, she said" situations and to document their interactions with the public. 

 

The camera records what really occurred without bias.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

 

2b : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena

 

https://kodsiengineering.com/using-video-evidence-in-accident-reconstruction/

 

"We love objective evidence. When forensic experts get video footage related to a collision or incident, it’s like Christmas came early for us."

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26322744.pdf?seq=1

 

"Body-worn cameras (BWCs) are one of the nation's latest policing tools to be used in the effort to increase police department transparency, strengthen community trust, and fight crime. BWCs are touted as game-changing technology in policing because of their potential to monitor officer misconduct during police-citizen encounters and provide objective evidence."

 

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-video-surveillance-is-used-in-personal-injury-cases-38998

 

"When there are two different stories about how an accident occurred, objective video evidence can be the deciding factor."

 

[Earl Grey]

20 minutes ago, MegaMind said:

 

Please link to where I was the first one to bring up Mo Pai.

 

It is on page one, and by the way: when I called you out, YOU EDITED IT to remove Mo Pai on page one but unsubtly kept referring to it when I warned you, and insisted I was referring to it because it “reminded you of common arguments against your group” which I didn’t even make or refer to—YOU did. 
 

So you will endure me and everyone else humiliating you endlessly until you wake up and get your head out of your asshole, acknowledge what you did, consider another viewpoint, and own it and apologize. Instead, you insist your reality and view of events is absolute.

 

Until you decide to address that issue, you can go to hell.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Earl Grey

[Zork]

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.

Quote

If the case goes to trial, the insurance company may attempt to use this footage to show that the victim was fabricating or exaggerating injuries. Such footage can have a direct impact on the victim’s credibility and call into question the entire claim. However, a personal injury lawyer can take steps to challenge such evidence and to refute attempts by the defense to discredit the victim’s claims through using video surveillance.

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.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Zork

[Earl Grey]

13 minutes ago, Zork said:

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.

Yeah, one big fucking personal testimonial.

[MegaMind]

Just now, Earl Grey said:

 

It is on page one, and by the way: when I called you out, YOU EDITED IT to remove Mo Pai on page one but unsubtly kept referring to it when I warned you, and insisted I was referring to it because it “reminded you of common arguments against your group” which I didn’t even make or refer to—YOU did. 
 

So you will endure me and everyone else humiliating you endlessly until you wake up and get your head out of you asshole, acknowledge what you did, consider another viewpoint, and own it and apologize. Instead, you insist your reality and view of events is absolute.

 

Until you decide to address that issue, you can go to hell.

 

Please link to the specific post.

[MegaMind]

1 minute ago, Earl Grey said:

Yeah, one big fucking personal testimonial.

 

Again the Magus of Java is merely a record of what John said to Kosta.

 

We have no way of knowing if it is true or false.

[MegaMind]

3 minutes ago, Zork said:

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 word "may" comes up in your link when talking about video footage. Why does that happen?

Because there is no such thing as an objective video!

 

By definition video is objective.

 

We are not contending that the video of John is proof of anything, only that it is the best evidence we know of at this time.

[Zork]

@MegaMind

Do you even read your sources?

 

Quote

 

How accurate is video analysis?

A discussion of the accuracy of video analysis should be prefaced by saying that determining vehicle speed from video analysis is almost never the only method we use. In fact, whether using video analysis or not, we ensure that any full accident reconstruction has supported conclusions that match even when determined several ways. For example, we have compared a speed assessed from video with information about the vehicle’s speed from another source, such as the vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR) or black box. We also check accident reconstruction analyses of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum with video analysis to make sure the speeds match. Having more than one source of information allows us to make conclusions with much higher certainty, which can often help settle matters early or form a strong portion of the expert evidence if matters proceed to court.

Validating the accuracy of video analysis is a matter of interest to us.  During our Crash Conference, vehicles are heavily instrumented and the crash is covered by numerous video camera views. What better situation could we ask for to conduct a little experiment or two? Warning: things are about to get nerdy! You can always skip to the conclusions, but read on if you want to understand how we tested video analysis accuracy.

 

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.

 

[Zork]

8 minutes ago, MegaMind said:

 

Again the Magus of Java is merely a record of what John said to Kosta.

 

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.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Zork

[MegaMind]

7 minutes ago, Zork said:

@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.

 

 

Police officers wear body cameras to prevent "he said, she said" situations.

 

This allows them to document their encounters with the public, beyond what is possible via personal testimony alone.

 

Dash cams are used to document what occurred in an accident, they can and do provide evidence the operator of the vehicle was not at fault. 

 

Without this it boils down many times to "he said, she said" and that is why people buy and install them in their cars. 

 

Video evidence of robberies and shop lifting crimes are routinely used in court.

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by MegaMind

[MegaMind]

1 minute ago, Zork said:

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. 

 

Chang does speak some English, for more advanced concepts he relied on others to help translate.

[Zork]

Just now, MegaMind said:

 

Police officers wear body cameras to prevent "he said, she said" situations.

 

This allows them to document their encounters with the public, beyond what is possible via personal testimony alone.

 

Dash cams are used to document what occurred in an accident, they can and do provide evidence the operator of the vehicle was not at fault.  Without this it boils down many times to "he said, she said" and that is why people buy and install them in their cars. 

 

Video evidence of robberies and shop lifting crimes are routinely used in court.

 

The source i quoted doesn't mention the above. You are debating out of context.

What the source says is that one video footage by itself isn't enough to prove anything in court.

[Zork]

1 minute ago, MegaMind said:

 

Chang does speak some English, for more advanced concepts he relied on others to help translate.

And how does this prove that there weren't two intermediaries between Chang and Magus of Java?

[MegaMind]

2 minutes ago, Zork said:

The source i quoted doesn't mention the above. You are debating out of context.

What the source says is that one video footage by itself isn't enough to prove anything in court.

 

Unfortunately that just isn't true, but you are welcome to keep arguing that if you like.

Edited December 23, 2019 by MegaMind

[Earl Grey]

14 minutes ago, MegaMind said:

 

Please link to the specific post.

Right, as I do that you’ll justify yourself and still find ways to avoid the issue and refuse to apologize. It’s all on the first page for anyone to see and everyone has already seen it.

 

If you’re not even going to consider it or apologize, no wasting my time hoping you will when you’ve consistently demonstrated you’re an insufferable asshole. Assholes feel sorry for themselves. And your behavior is consistently that of an asshole who feels sorry for himself instead of realizing what a bitch he has been.

[Earl Grey]

This broken record or time crystal is scratched like hell.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Earl Grey

[MegaMind]

Just now, Earl Grey said:

Right, as I do that you’ll justify yourself and still find ways to avoid the issue and refuse to apologize. It’s all on the first page for anyone to see and everyone has already seen it.

 

If you’re not even going to consider it or apologize, no wasting my time hoping you will when you’ve consistently demonstrated you’re an insufferable asshole. Assholes feel sorry for themselves. And your behavior is consistently that of an asshole who feels sorry for himself instead of realizing what a bitch he has been.

 

There is nothing to apologize for.

[Zork]

4 minutes ago, MegaMind said:

 

Unfortunately that just isn't true, but you are welcome to keep arguing that if you like.

How accurate is video analysis?

A discussion of the accuracy of video analysis should be prefaced by saying that determining vehicle speed from video analysis is almost never the only method we use. In fact, whether using video analysis or not, we ensure that any full accident reconstruction has supported conclusions that match even when determined several ways. For example, we have compared a speed assessed from video with information about the vehicle’s speed from another source, such as the vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR) or black box. We also check accident reconstruction analyses of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum with video analysis to make sure the speeds match. Having more than one source of information allows us to make conclusions with much higher certainty, which can often help settle matters early or form a strong portion of the expert evidence if matters proceed to court.

Validating the accuracy of video analysis is a matter of interest to us.  During our Crash Conference, vehicles are heavily instrumented and the crash is covered by numerous video camera views. What better situation could we ask for to conduct a little experiment or two? Warning: things are about to get nerdy! You can always skip to the conclusions, but read on if you want to understand how we tested video analysis accuracy.

 

 

Which part of the above don't you understand?

It is verbatim from a source YOU gave us to prove something that isn't true ie. Video footage as evidence in court.The link is crystal clear in saying about making "conclusions with certainty". If video is objective evidence then why are the experts talking about making conclusions with certainty?

Objective means certain and unquestionable. This implies that video isn't conclusive by itself nor objective.

 

I told you already, there is no debate about it. Video cannot be used in court in a huge number of circumstances and it is not acceptable as such in many places among which is the place i live. CHANGE YOUR NARRATIVE!

Edited December 23, 2019 by Zork

[MegaMind]

1 minute ago, Earl Grey said:

This broken record or time crystal is scratched like hell.

 

 

We come here mainly to defend ourselves, our teachers, and our practice.

 

If the attacks stop, then we do as well.

[MegaMind]

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

How accurate is video analysis?

A discussion of the accuracy of video analysis should be prefaced by saying that determining vehicle speed from video analysis is almost never the only method we use. In fact, whether using video analysis or not, we ensure that any full accident reconstruction has supported conclusions that match even when determined several ways. For example, we have compared a speed assessed from video with information about the vehicle’s speed from another source, such as the vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR) or black box. We also check accident reconstruction analyses of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum with video analysis to make sure the speeds match. Having more than one source of information allows us to make conclusions with much higher certainty, which can often help settle matters early or form a strong portion of the expert evidence if matters proceed to court.

Validating the accuracy of video analysis is a matter of interest to us.  During our Crash Conference, vehicles are heavily instrumented and the crash is covered by numerous video camera views. What better situation could we ask for to conduct a little experiment or two? Warning: things are about to get nerdy! You can always skip to the conclusions, but read on if you want to understand how we tested video analysis accuracy.

 

 

Which part of the above don't you understand?

It is verbatim from a source YOU gave us to prove something that isn't true ie. Video footage as evidence in court.

I told you already, there is no debate about it. Video cannot be used in court in a huge number of circumstances and it is not acceptable as such in many places among which is the place i live. CHANGE YOUR NARRATIVE!

 

Police wear body cams to document their interactions with the public.

 

This prevents them from having "he said, she said" situations in court, and goes beyond personal testimony.

 

People do install dash cams in their cars to protect themselves against "he said, she said" situations.  

 

In many cases during an accident the video from the dash cam was enough to prove the other party was at fault.

 

Video footage of bank robberies, and shoplifting is used in court.

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by MegaMind

[Earl Grey]

5 minutes ago, MegaMind said:

 

There is nothing to apologize for.

 

2 minutes ago, MegaMind said:

 

 

We come here mainly to defend ourselves, our teachers, and our practice.

 

If the attacks stop, then we do as well.

Except the initial issue was that there was no attack—YOU created it. And you’re feeling sorry for yourself for the oppression you created. Typical asshole who feels sorry for himself and acts worse because he thinks people suck, and people are shit to him because he continues to be an asshole and refuses to change.

[Zork]

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

How accurate is video analysis?

A discussion of the accuracy of video analysis should be prefaced by saying that determining vehicle speed from video analysis is almost never the only method we use. In fact, whether using video analysis or not, we ensure that any full accident reconstruction has supported conclusions that match even when determined several ways. For example, we have compared a speed assessed from video with information about the vehicle’s speed from another source, such as the vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR) or black box. We also check accident reconstruction analyses of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum with video analysis to make sure the speeds match. Having more than one source of information allows us to make conclusions with much higher certainty, which can often help settle matters early or form a strong portion of the expert evidence if matters proceed to court.

Validating the accuracy of video analysis is a matter of interest to us.  During our Crash Conference, vehicles are heavily instrumented and the crash is covered by numerous video camera views. What better situation could we ask for to conduct a little experiment or two? Warning: things are about to get nerdy! You can always skip to the conclusions, but read on if you want to understand how we tested video analysis accuracy.

 

 

Which part of the above don't you understand?

It is verbatim from a source YOU gave us to prove something that isn't true ie. Video footage as evidence in court.The link is crystal clear in saying about making "conclusions with certainty". If video is objective evidence then why are the experts talking about making conclusions with certainty?

Objective means certain and unquestionable. This implies that video isn't conclusive by itself nor objective.

 

I told you already, there is no debate about it. Video cannot be used in court in a huge number of circumstances and it is not acceptable as such in many places among which is the place i live. CHANGE YOUR NARRATIVE!

 

[MegaMind]

1 minute ago, Earl Grey said:

 

Except the initial issue was that there was no attack—YOU created it. And you’re feeling sorry for yourself for the oppression you created. Typical asshole who feels sorry for himself and acts worse because he thinks people suck, and people are shit to him because he continues to be an asshole and refuses to change.

 

If you say so.

[MegaMind]

Just now, Zork said:

 

 

This has already been covered, many times already.

[Zork]

1 minute ago, MegaMind said:

Police wear body cams to document their interactions with the public.

 

This prevents them from having "he said, she said" things in court, and goes beyond personal testimony.

 

People do install dash cams in their cars to protect themselves against "he said, she said" situations.  

 

In many cases during an accident the video from the dash cam was enough to prove the other party was at fault.

 

Video footage of bank robberies, and shoplifting is used in court.

No. Sorry to burst your bubble. NO. Period.