Video as an acceptable form of evidence

[Shadow_self]

Now this is usually something that comes up when the dreaded Mo Pai discussions happen.

 

However, especially as of late...there appears to be an awful lot of people putting out videos claiming all sorts (I provide few links below)...this was always a thing...but lately is becoming even more of a thing, for whatever reason I do not know...these are just a few that popped up on YouTube 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some will argue that  scientists should provide a basis from which they appear to "rule out fraud" would provide certainty (despite the fact it is a logical fallacy)..so with that in mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, being nonspecific to any  one situation...I deliberately gathered videos of all sorts

 

Do you think any of the above is an acceptable as a form of evidence for such claims?

 

Please  note...I am not asking anyone whether they believe any of this is true or possible.

 

Only if they feel a video could sway them to believe any of the instances above?

 

If so, why? If not, then what would suffice?

 

I attach a poll, and hope you will vote so that we may quantify the result...even if you do not wish to participate in the discussion 

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

I voted no, because a video by itself can not be considered acceptable evidence since it can be faked. BUT a video is good for leading people to seek out whoever performed whatever feat was shown so they can experience it for themselves to see if it’s true.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Pak_Satrio

[Shadow_self]

31 minutes ago, Pak_Satrio said:

I voted no, because a video by itself can not be considered acceptable evidence since it can be faked. BUT a video is good for leading people to seek out whoever performed whatever feat was shown so they can experience it for themselves to see if it’s true.

 

Well said. I share a very similar sentiment

 

I mean, can anyone say they weren't taken aback when they started to run into all this stuff?

 

It is however, for someone who hasn't been around it... a complete minefield.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Shadow_self

[Shadao]

43 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

Only if they feel a video could sway them to believe any of the instances above?

No, and for a very simple reason...videos can be edited(if they'll look awful or believable is another story), use camera tricks, paid actors, have a grainy quality(or be unfocused)...basically there are many reasons as to why a recorded video would never hold weight.

 

The only way I see video being a form of evidence is if it is a live stream of the person doing whatever it it that they claim to be able to do.Preferably in a public space, with decent light and quality.

Then maybe video could be an acceptable form of evidence as it is almost impossible to fake certain things while live, unless you prepare yourself/props/actors in advance but even then...well as they say in theater...shit happens.And I doubt that fakers would be able to improvise something on the spot.

 

 

[Iliketurtles]

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.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

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.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

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.

[Nungali]

I worked for years in the film industry and saw first hand how they do all that stuff , including on the Matrix movies .

 

But here is the thing ... if its in a film, although we might get 'carried away' while watching it , we know its staged , and film technology 'trickery' .

 

But when its a youtube  ... well, gosh !  That MUST be real ! 

 

 

 

 

People get SOOOOO sucked in by an obvious fake thing  ... as long as it has visuals . I have a friend that often makes comments , when we are watching a doco or such , like ;

" Wow, Imagine being out here all by yourself ! "

 

Me :  "   Yep ... just him and the film crew . "

 

" He must be starving , living off   grubs and insects like that ! "

 

Me;  " Just as well he gets a catered meal between shoots ." 

 

 

[Nungali]

29 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

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.

 

 

AH ... that magic team of   'professionals'   again     What where they again ? I forgot ...

 

a professional plumber , a  professional car smash repairer  and a professional salami maker  ?

[zerostao]

My favorite is the African shaman levitating. 
 

I think it’s mostly to do with perception;  the perception of realIty.

If you were there at any of these video events and saw with your own eyes; would you be more accepting of the reality? Or would you continue to question the happenings of that event?

Ok, you witnessed something but what exactly ?

The narrators “paint” an explanation for the viewer,, some more skilled in doing so than others. Some planted seeds of suggestion before any event was witnessed. And if that seed sprouted in someone’s mind it could lead them to some conclusion. False or otherwise. I’d also like to add there are very few absolutes. Often it is a combination of elements, variables, conditions, at play. Tweak one or tinker another, outcome will vary. 
Question everything. If a particular idea, system, art, study, is resonating with you, then do some follow up on it. Test it. Is it working for you or not?

The same thing is true with books. Even the classics. There is often truth contained but I question if it is 100 absolute all truth. Even if the author had the highest virtue, sincerity, experience, that is what worked for them. 
There are no guarantees it will work for you. YMWV

There is no one size fits all. IMO

and this post of mine is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

 

The beauty is there are countless ways, paths, methods, schools, 
so, there is a likelihood one will encounter a style that one resonates with and can explore deeper.

 

The beauty of it is also the challenge of it, for some, the horror of it 

It can be a daunting task to sift through the gravel to find that golden nugget. Several factors could come into play. On one side of the spectrum one could search decades in vain. And on the other side of that spectrum, one could be at the right place at the right moment, stars alll line up, the fairy godmother tap you on the head with her wand and you are golden.

No one said, slight adjustment// no one credible ever said it was going to be easy and success a sure thing.

 

Some folks mean well and they think they know something And they give out all kinds of advice of what works and what don’t.

I mean really; who made them expert on such matters?

These types, question for sure. 
It’s all Kung Fu Hustle fellow bums. 
peddling Spiritual attainments, Daoist skills, other school’s skills. 
Buyer beware.

I used to teach, I used to post my experiences and opinions on the energy arts, I had open invitation for anyone to come check it out live and in person. I wasn’t even charging for my services, time, resources, energy or the experience. A handful of bums did wander over have a look. 
I no longer do those things. I no longer post my opinions. Is it because there was nothing to see, feel, experience, know ? 
No, that isn’t the reason I stopped those activities. In fact, there are marvelous experiences to discover, fabulous skills that can be developed. I have other reasons as to why I closed those activities.

Well, I’ve rambled on 

just a bum rambling with other bums,, any of ya’ll got fifty cents you could spare to a bum, do ya?

just kidding

was probably only worth two cents at most, on me.

my next post on this thread will be in 

blue.

no one has violated any rules or anything, but this is just as good a place and now just as good a time IMO

Edited April 14, 2022 by zerostao

[Nungali]

" Now is just as  good a time to violate rules "   ?   

 

 

 

.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Nungali

[zerostao]

9 minutes ago, Nungali said:

" Now is just as  good a time to violate rules "   ?   

 

 

 

.

as good as any other time, I reckon.

thread did have a reference to mo pai, that is all a mod needs right there 

[zerostao]

1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

 

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.

 

 

really now?! I guess next you will suggest there is such a thing as fake news or something.

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

I agree that it's not very good.

There is no need to constantly make reference to "testimony"...nobody has mentioned the word

 

I am glad you agree....here's the problem. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

Something classified as not very good is certainly not extraordinary

 

However...being present, having supplied sufficient controls....and the phenomenon in question arising despite this...that is extraordinary

 

Heres the problem...you are conflating first hand observation with a second hand recording...

 

Someone cannot edit your experience in real time when controls are sufficient and applied well...but you have no idea what happened in between the time the video is recorded and it's eventual presentation to you

 

I hope this makes sense

 

 

1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said:

The reasons that video is superior to personal testimony

Again, nobody is making the argument for testimony...so why invent an argument against it?

 

1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said:

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.

 

Actually it is a criticism of video....because the video is editable, that is exactly the problem...in other words it can be manipulated...and manipulated to a far greater degree than real time experience when one is readily prepared for fraud to occur.

[Iliketurtles]

22 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

There is no need to constantly make reference to "testimony"...nobody has mentioned the word

 

I am glad you agree....here's the problem. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

Something classified as not very good is certainly not extraordinary

 

However...being present, having supplied sufficient controls....and the phenomenon in question arising despite this...that is extraordinary

 

Heres the problem...you are conflating first hand observation with a second hand recording...

 

Someone cannot edit your experience in real time when controls are sufficient and applied well...but you have no idea what happened in between the time the video is recorded and it's eventual presentation to you

 

I hope this makes sense

 

 

Again, nobody is making the argument for testimony...so why invent an argument against it?

 

 

Actually it is a criticism of video....because the video is editable, that is exactly the problem...in other words it can be manipulated...and manipulated to a far greater degree than real time experience when one is readily prepared for fraud to occur.

 

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?

 

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

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?

[Iliketurtles]

3 hours ago, Shadao said:

No, and for a very simple reason...videos can be edited(if they'll look awful or believable is another story), use camera tricks, paid actors, have a grainy quality(or be unfocused)...basically there are many reasons as to why a recorded video would never hold weight.

 

The only way I see video being a form of evidence is if it is a live stream of the person doing whatever it it that they claim to be able to do.Preferably in a public space, with decent light and quality.

Then maybe video could be an acceptable form of evidence as it is almost impossible to fake certain things while live, unless you prepare yourself/props/actors in advance but even then...well as they say in theater...shit happens.And I doubt that fakers would be able to improvise something on the spot.

 

 

 

So what other evidence would you accept?

[Shadao]

1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said:

If recording a random video and posting it on YouTube proved anything then Criss Angel would be a miracle worker.

I remember, when I was younger, seeing his videos of him "walking on water" and I think there was one of him "walking on the walls of a building".

 

And even back then I knew it was all illusions.Honestly, Dynamo made the best walking on water illusion so far, in my opinion.

 

1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said:

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.

 

Yes, dash cams are a great way to deal with the insurance scammers that like to pretend to have been hit by your car.

 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

But when its a youtube  ... well, gosh !  That MUST be real ! 

People think that?TIL something new...

 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

People get SOOOOO sucked in by an obvious fake thing  ... as long as it has visuals .

I haven't seen a single Youtube video that had said "visuals", most were "meh" and only few were of decent quality, but nothing that would make me say "Yup, no way this is fake!".

 

1 hour ago, zerostao said:

Question everything. If a particular idea, system, art, study, is resonating with you, then do some follow up on it. Test it.

This is how I see people getting their evidence, through experimenting/going through it themselves.

 

27 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

This.

If people keep it to themselves, fine, but the moment they start some sort of superiority BS by spouting things like "I can make a fireball" or "I can levitate" then for sure they shouldn't have an issue demonstrating that, right?

 

I mean, if you can brag it must be because you're confident in your skills, right?So it shouldn't be hard to do it, right?

 

 

[Shadow_self]

9 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

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?

 

 

 

If a person asked me about my experiences as a matter of interest

 

I would gladly share what I have seen/experienced/witnessed and so forth.

 

If they asked me for proof, id say it is pointless.

 

This is not something I can prove because I am not the one who is able to do said things...so anything I could present you with (be it testimony or video or whatever)  any would fall short of an experience that would leave you without doubt. Id simply say that's something you'd need to experience for yourself...there is no other way to know without invoking some kind of faith.

 

Like I said..extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....neither the medium of testimony nor video can provide that in my opinion. 

[Shadao]

3 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

So what other evidence would you accept?

My comment was in regard to videos as proof when it comes to the supernatural or paranormal.

 

Proving one person is trying to scam you for insurance or that a cop beat you is one thing(as these are about wanting to show a happening to others), but these people that use video as a "proof of their powers" do it in hopes to influence others to see them as these grand figures that have "unlocked the mystical arts"(these are about trying to make the mind of others).

 

As I said, for the supernatural/paranormal stuff it would be best to do live streams as those are really hard to edit on the go.

[Iliketurtles]

3 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

If a person asked me about my experiences as a matter of interest

 

I would gladly share what I have seen/experienced/witnessed and so forth.

 

If they asked me for proof, id say it is pointless.

 

This is not something I can prove because I am not the one who is able to do said things...so anything I could present you with (be it testimony or video or whatever)  any would fall short of an experience that would leave you without doubt. Id simply say that's something you'd need to experience for yourself...there is no other way to know without invoking some kind of faith.

 

Like I said..extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....neither the medium of testimony nor video can provide that in my opinion. 

 

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. 

 

 

[Shadow_self]

19 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

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?

Personally id not bother..Consider this

 

How many videos of UFOS are out there? how much testimony? How much documentation?

 

Now tell me how much of that is considered as legitimate evidence?  

[Iliketurtles]

1 minute ago, Shadao said:

My comment was in regard to videos as proof when it comes to the supernatural or paranormal.

 

Proving one person is trying to scam you for insurance or that a cop beat you is one thing(as these are about wanting to show a happening to others), but these people that use video as a "proof of their powers" do it in hopes to influence others to see them as these grand figures that have "unlocked the mystical arts"(these are about trying to make the mind of others).

 

As I said, for the supernatural/paranormal stuff it would be best to do live streams as those are really hard to edit on the go.

 

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?

[Iliketurtles]

Just now, Shadow_self said:

Personally id not bother..Consider this

 

How many videos of UFOS are out there? how much testimony? How much documentation?

 

Now tell me how much of that is considered as legitimate evidence?  

 

If you were required to do so under law, and were not given a choice.

 

How would you provide better evidence?

 

[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

Edited April 15, 2022 by Iliketurtles