Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Quote:You can only see it when the sun catches it or is lighting it against a relatively dark background

LOL! That's what I just said. You can see it on video. If it was in that room it would also be visible, especially if it was moving. But like I said there is no evidence of it at all, and the soldier himself doesn't see it either. And the door opens with a force far beyond what could be relayed from a mere pulled fishing line. So no string or fishing line or whatever else you wanna change it to. It's just not there. Comprende?

Quote:And like the claims of healing from a televangelist, the burden is not on the unbeliever, it's on the one making the extraordinary claim. It is not an atheist's burden to disprove god. It is the burden of those who claim to have proof.

That's why I cited all the sources of my belief in the undeniable evidence that exists for the paranormal. There is not a lick of faith about it. It is an entirely empirically founded belief based on tons of video and eyewitness testimony. But it's telling that you keep attributing to me the very religious faith that you yourself cling to. It doesn't say much for your self-respect in this area does it?

Quote:And more story time isn't evidence

So you won't even check out the video? Fine. Stew in your own blissful ignorance then.

(Jan 3, 2019 08:40 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:You can only see it when the sun catches it or is lighting it against a relatively dark background

LOL! That's what I just said. You can see it on video. If it was in that room it would also be visible, especially if it was moving. But like I said there is no evidence of it at all, and the soldier himself doesn't see it either. And the door opens with a force far beyond what could be relayed from a mere pulled fishing line. So no string or fishing line or whatever else you wanna change it to. It's just not there. Comprende?

Funny how you completely failed to quote or respond to:

"Here's fishing line in an HD video....Now reduce its quality to 240p (same as the barracks video) and see how much harder it is to see."

You know, be intellectually honest and compare apples to apples. How do you expect to convince anyone when you can't even demonstrate the slightest credibility yourself? We have to think you're credible before we would even begin to take your word that someone else is. Do you really think people are so dumb that they don't notice when you totally avoid, or make straw men of, valid points? Or is your attentional bias so strong that you never even registered reading those words at all?

Again, unless you're claiming to read minds, there's no way you can know what the soldier did or did not see. You can believe what you're told, but that's a subjective matter of credibility, not evidence. And apparently you don't know how lightweight those doors are nor how strong fishing line can be.

Quote:

Quote:And like the claims of healing from a televangelist, the burden is not on the unbeliever, it's on the one making the extraordinary claim. It is not an atheist's burden to disprove god. It is the burden of those who claim to have proof.

That's why I cited all the sources of my belief in the undeniable evidence that exists for the paranormal. There is not a lick of faith about it. It is an entirely empirically founded belief based on tons of video and eyewitness testimony.

You only cited other people who send money to televangelists. Empiricism requires physical evidence and/or experimentation, neither of which applying to your invisible unicorns. Video and eyewitnesses share a good deal of overlap when it comes to being unreliable. For instance, the soldier supposedly, according to you alone, saw something that spooked him. The video didn't catch it.

In an analog-video world, the courts often viewed video evidence as the “silent witness” that simply spoke for itself. Jurors were frequently instructed to just trust their eyes. However, in today’s CCTV market— where no standards exist for image reliability, and where video evidence is often produced by DVR systems that are mostly mass-produced in developing countries—video can no longer be accepted at face value, nor can it be expected to accurately represent what it purports to show. In this digital world, compression, motion prediction, and enhancement technology may inadvertently change and alter the events captured by the camera.

In short: A picture may still be worth a thousand words, but the lay interpretation of that picture may be nothing more than fiction.

Interpretation of video evidence is at the heart of a video analyst’s work. In a digital-video industry void of standards, the ability to interpret video evidence accurately is dependent on the analyst’s understanding of compression. Video compression is the process of reducing the amount of data that represents the visual information. The first casualties of compression are image accuracy and detail. If the level of compression is so great that the video images no longer accurately represent what they purport to show, then the video can no longer be relied upon as a faithful reproduction of the event.
- https://www.policeone.com/police-product...e-trusted/

And this is exactly why I pointed out the barracks video is only 240p (about half the resolution of VHS).

Quote:But it's telling that you keep attributing to me the very religious faith that you yourself cling to. It doesn't say much for your self-respect in this area does it?

I freely admit mine is only a belief and that I can offer no compelling proof. That kind of intellectual honesty is the hallmark of self-respect.

“Intellectual honesty means simply not being willing to lie to oneself.” - Thomas Metzinger

You insist your faith is "entirely empirically founded" even though you can offer no compelling evidence. And you're not even honest enough with yourself to realize that your subjective belief is not as compelling to others as it is to you.

Quote:

Quote:And more story time isn't evidence

So you won't even check out the video? Fine. Stew in your own blissful ignorance then.

Already did. It was a guy telling ghost stories...exactly what I said. Hell, the video was even called "SCARY STORIES IN THIS OFFICE TOUR!"

Quote:Funny how you completely failed to quote or respond to:
"Here's fishing line in an HD video....Now reduce its quality to 240p (same as the barracks video) and see how much harder it is to see."

LOL! IOW even after deliberately distorting the video you could still see the fishing lines. I rest my case.

Quote:Again, unless you're claiming to read minds, there's no way you can know what the soldier did or did not see.

Yes I can. He obviously sees no strings as shown on the video. And he never mentions any such prank or hoax years later. He was there. Ofcourse I'm going to believe him.

Quote:And apparently you don't know how lightweight those doors are nor how strong fishing line can be.

I know what a pulled fishing line can do and can't do. And there is no way that much force can be exerted by a fishing line. There just isn't.

Quote:video can no longer be accepted at face value, nor can it be expected to accurately represent what it purports to show.

LOL! Someone needs to tell all the police depts around the world that regularly use video to identify suspects and to solve crimes.

Quote:You insist your faith is "entirely empirically founded" even though you can offer no compelling evidence.

I just posted 2 videos of compelling evidence. You're denials of it are not my problem.

Quote:Already did. It was a guy telling ghost stories...exactly what I said. Hell, the video was even called "SCARY STORIES IN THIS OFFICE TOUR!"

Simply eyewitness accounts of paranormal phenomena by multiple persons all confirming that the building is indeed haunted. The likelihood that they are all just making these accounts up is ridiculously minute.

(Jan 3, 2019 06:51 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Funny how you completely failed to quote or respond to:
"Here's fishing line in an HD video....Now reduce its quality to 240p (same as the barracks video) and see how much harder it is to see."

LOL! IOW even after deliberately distorting the video you could still see the fishing lines. I rest my case.

Could you see the fishing line at 240p? I couldn't. Did you even try?
And if setting it to 240p resolution is "deliberately distorting the video" then your barracks video to also distorted, even if not deliberately. Encoding at lower resolution is the same either way.

Quote:

Quote:Again, unless you're claiming to read minds, there's no way you can know what the soldier did or did not see.

Yes I can. He obviously sees no strings as shown on the video. And he never mentions any such prank or hoax years later. He was there. Ofcourse I'm going to believe him.

You just believe what you want to believe, because the only thing you can know about what he may have seen beyond the video is complete hearsay.

Quote:

Quote:And apparently you don't know how lightweight those doors are nor how strong fishing line can be.

I know what a pulled fishing line can do and can't do. And there is no way that much force can be exerted by a fishing line. There just isn't.

Really? You've never seen deep sea fishermen fighting a 120-210lb marlin for hours? O_o
The depths of your ignorance continues to amaze.

Quote:

Quote:video can no longer be accepted at face value, nor can it be expected to accurately represent what it purports to show.

LOL! Someone needs to tell all the police depts around the world that regularly use video to identify suspects and to solve crimes.

Of course you wouldn't understand the difference between just identifying a suspect and actually using a video to convict them.
And that source, PoliceOne.com, is apparently a resource for police to exchange information.

Quote:

Quote:You insist your faith is "entirely empirically founded" even though you can offer no compelling evidence.

I just posted 2 videos of compelling evidence. You're denials of it are not my problem.

No, you posted one extremely low quality and short video, with no follow up, and one guy just telling ghost stories.
Your gullibility is your own problem.

Quote:

Quote:Already did. It was a guy telling ghost stories...exactly what I said. Hell, the video was even called "SCARY STORIES IN THIS OFFICE TOUR!"

Simply eyewitness accounts of paranormal phenomena by multiple persons all confirming that the building is indeed haunted. The likelihood that they are all just making these accounts up is ridiculously minute.

Hearsay, with zero corroboration. The likelihood that eyewitnesses are unreliable, for a host of reasons, necessitates more than just tall tales.
But don't lose faith in your invisible unicorns.

Quote:Could you see the fishing line at 240p? I couldn't. Did you even try?

See...first you say it is harder to see, meaning you can still see it, and now you say you can't see it. Make up your mind. So much is riding on this. lol!

Quote:You just believe what you want to believe, because the only thing you can know about what he may have seen beyond the video is complete hearsay.

Right..the reliable hearsay of someone who was actually there as opposed to the hearsay of you who wasn't there and seeks only to debunk all paranormal evidence.

Quote:Really? You've never seen deep sea fishermen fighting a 120-210lb marlin for hours? O_o
The depths of your ignorance continues to amaze.

Noone can jerk a marlin suddenly out of the water with fishing line. Noone can jerk open a latched locker with fishing line with the force we see in the video. Nope..there's no fishing line.

Quote:Of course you wouldn't understand the difference between just identifying a suspect and actually using a video to convict them.

If it's reliable enough for crime solving then it's reliable enough for me.

Quote:No, you posted one extremely low quality and short video, with no follow up, and one guy just telling ghost stories.

I posted a clear video of poltergeist activity and a number of eyewitness accounts of a haunting in an office building. Both compelling evidence for the paranormal.

Quote:Hearsay, with zero corroboration. The likelihood that eyewitnesses are unreliable, for a host of reasons, necessitates more than just tall tales.

Eyewitness accounts of paranormal activity, all corroborating each other. It doesn't get any better than that.

(Jan 3, 2019 10:09 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Could you see the fishing line at 240p? I couldn't. Did you even try?

See...first you say it is harder to see, meaning you can still see it, and now you say you can't see it. Make up your mind. So much is riding on this. lol!

So you didn't bother to watch it at 240p (to match the barracks video resolution). Perhaps too lazy or afraid it would prove your nonsense about being able to see any string in such a video complete bullshit. Otherwise you could have sorted it out for yourself without needing to parse my description.
I allowed for the possibility* you might find, or convince yourself you found, one frame where you could see the fishing line. No doubt, if you had, you would be trying to crow about me saying it couldn't be seen at all. That's how intellectually dishonest you are. And that's exactly why I wrote "And you know exactly where to look for fishing line on a rod and extending to a lure." Had you found one, it would have been because you know exactly where to look.


*You can't manage to be intellectually honest enough to even allow for the possibility of mundane explanations.

Quote:

Quote:You just believe what you want to believe, because the only thing you can know about what he may have seen beyond the video is complete hearsay.

Right..the reliable hearsay of someone who was actually there as opposed to the hearsay of you who wasn't there and seeks only to debunk all paranormal evidence.

Yes, "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate" is the definition of hearsay.
That fishing line, pranks, and hoaxes exist is not. You can verify each of those for yourself. Way more reliable than invisible unicorns.
See how simple reasoning works? O_o

Quote:

Quote:Really? You've never seen deep sea fishermen fighting a 120-210lb marlin for hours? O_o
The depths of your ignorance continues to amaze.

Noone can jerk a marlin suddenly out of the water with fishing line. Noone can jerk open a latched locker with fishing line with the force we see in the video. Nope..there's no fishing line.

LOL! You think that door was any where near 120lbs?!
What, you've never seen that sort of thin metal locker before either? You seriously need to get out more.

Again, there's zero indication the locker was latched, as the video shows no change in the handle from before it opens to when it closes. If the latch had been forcefully broken/bent, this guy should be showing it as physical evidence, but...nothing.

Quote:

Quote:Of course you wouldn't understand the difference between just identifying a suspect and actually using a video to convict them.

If it's reliable enough for crime solving then it's reliable enough for me.

Then prove it. Show me one case where video alone led to a conviction without any other corroborating evidence.
Depending on things like angle and quality, video can be as unreliable as an eyewitness.

Quote:

Quote:No, you posted one extremely low quality and short video, with no follow up, and one guy just telling ghost stories.

I posted a clear video of poltergeist activity and a number of eyewitness accounts of a haunting in an office building. Both compelling evidence for the paranormal.

No video at 240p resolution (about half VHS quality) is a "clear video" nor compelling.
Neither is story time, where we only get hearsay and hearsay of hearsay.

Quote:

Quote:Hearsay, with zero corroboration. The likelihood that eyewitnesses are unreliable, for a host of reasons, necessitates more than just tall tales.

Eyewitness accounts of paranormal activity, all corroborating each other. It doesn't get any better than that.

No, that's not how corroboration works. If I say I saw a unicorn, someone elsewhere claiming they saw a unicorn does not corroborate the existence of unicorns. Otherwise many people claiming to see god or miracles would prove their existence. Now if I say I saw a deer, I wouldn't need corroboration, because deer have already been proven to exist and anyone can go find one for themselves. You're skipping the step of proving something exists and leaping to accepting all claims as true.

Quote:Then prove it. Show me one case where video alone led to a conviction without any other corroborating evidence.

Seriously? Why don't you start here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=criminal...e&ie=UTF-8

"Surveillance cameras have become a vital part of crime fighting in the last few decades. In nearly seven out of 10 murders, surveillance footage is used to help solve the crime. Fortunately for law enforcement, criminals don't seem to be getting much smarter, even as the technology to catch them is. The world is becoming more and more surveilled each day thanks to the falling costs of cameras, and crimes are routinely being solved thanks to all forms of surveillance footage.

More and more, criminals are being thwarted by surveillance cameras, with some burglars even being caught in the act by homeowners monitoring real-time surveillance footage of their houses from afar. The number of crimes caught on surveillance cameras continues to rise, leaving criminals everywhere scrambling.

From catching petty thieves, murderers, and even terrorists, surveillance footage is now an integral part of law enforcement. Sometimes the entire criminal act is caught by one camera, other times, fragments of footage from several different cameras are pieced together to identify the culprits. Either way, surveillance has undoubtedly made a sizable impact on crime and law enforcement, and with the increasing use of things like body cameras for officers, this trend is sure to continue."

https://www.ranker.com/list/crimes-caugh...ordan-love

(Jan 4, 2019 12:36 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Then prove it. Show me one case where video alone led to a conviction without any other corroborating evidence.

Seriously? Why don't you start here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=criminal...e&ie=UTF-8

"Surveillance cameras have become a vital part of crime fighting in the last few decades. In nearly seven out of 10 murders, surveillance footage is used to help solve the crime. Fortunately for law enforcement, criminals don't seem to be getting much smarter, even as the technology to catch them is. The world is becoming more and more surveilled each day thanks to the falling costs of cameras, and crimes are routinely being solved thanks to all forms of surveillance footage.

More and more, criminals are being thwarted by surveillance cameras, with some burglars even being caught in the act by homeowners monitoring real-time surveillance footage of their houses from afar. The number of crimes caught on surveillance cameras continues to rise, leaving criminals everywhere scrambling.

From catching petty thieves, murderers, and even terrorists, surveillance footage is now an integral part of law enforcement. Sometimes the entire criminal act is caught by one camera, other times, fragments of footage from several different cameras are pieced together to identify the culprits. Either way, surveillance has undoubtedly made a sizable impact on crime and law enforcement, and with the increasing use of things like body cameras for officers, this trend is sure to continue."

https://www.ranker.com/list/crimes-caugh...ordan-love

And? No mention of a specific conviction based on only video evidence.
No one disputed the trivial fact that video "helps" solve crime.

It's sad that of everything I just posted that's all you felt you could rebut...and that's the best you could do.


You really have no clue how any of this reads to the average person, do you? If you did, you'd likely post much less, knowing what a fool you regularly make of yourself.

Quote:You really have no clue how any of this reads to the average person, do you? If you did, you'd likely post much less, knowing what a fool you regularly make of yourself.

And we're back with the pissy ad homs. You really can't help yourself can you? You're done here..

(Jan 4, 2019 01:53 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:You really have no clue how any of this reads to the average person, do you? If you did, you'd likely post much less, knowing what a fool you regularly make of yourself.

And we're back with the pissy ad homs. You really can't help yourself can you? You're done here..

Among many other things, you seriously need to learn what an ad hominem is. Coincidentally:

(Jan 3, 2019 07:58 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]3. Ad Hominem: [...] personal attacks aren't necessarily ad hominem fallacies. As Novella wrote, "If I impolitely state that someone with whom I disagree is a jackass, that's not an ad hominem fallacy. If I say their argument is wrong because they are a jackass, then that is a fallacy. [...]"

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Demonstrated fact or even name-calling are not ad hominems. Nowhere have I avoided any point you've made, but the same cannot be said of you. And this whining about a fictitious ad hominem is actually just a red herring (a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument).