Do Photos and videos lie? Sure do

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by DaveC426913, Jun 9, 2021.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    An extreme example of what kind of artifacting video can produce, even in excellent lighting conditions.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Well, that changes everything.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,492
    Yep..I'm convinced. Videos and photos are just too damn unreliable to tell us anything.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    lol Think the video shows though that we should show at least some skepticism before believing all claims since it seems easier than most think, to create a paranormal “hoax.”
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,492
    As long as we don't use that as an excuse to dismiss all paranormal/ufo photo and video evidence in general, I'm fine with that.
     
    wegs likes this.
  9. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Agree. Extremes in either direction seem short sighted when we are dealing with consciousness/paranormal/unusual phenomena. There doesn’t seem to be a happy medium within these topics. Confirmation bias possibly in either direction?

    If you absolutely disbelieve that ghosts could ever possibly exist, no proof will be plausible enough for you; if you leap to believing all ghost encounters are legit, no other plausible options will satisfy. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    We don't. Which is why every case is examined on its own merits.

    That works for proponents of paranormal ideas but also against proponents. "This is probably a paranormal event because all those others were probably paranormal events as well." is not a valid argument.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    No. Skeptics simply want evidence. And evidence isn't compelling unless it rules out mundane explanations. (otherwise it does not compel you toward an otherwise implausible explanation.)

    Proponents often believe that evidence is compelling if it could be paranormal. That's not compulsion, that's wishful thinking.

    No one should be coming to a science forum and arguing their beliefs. Beliefs do not require defending.

    The happy medium is:

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until extraordinary evidence is forthcoming, the case for a paranormal explanation has not been sufficiently made.
     
  12. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    But if you have confirmation bias, no proof will ever be enough. (I’ve mentioned that confirmation bias however, can go the other way, too - believing any and all claims without legitimate proof) The UFO/paranormal subforum was created by the administrators of this science forum so it probably deserves some fair discussion. While it is a science forum, there is room to discuss things that fall outside hard science topics.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    Not to get nit-picky, but bias doesn't mean black or white.

    So, I'd modify it to say "If you have confirmation bias, you are going to require more evidence to reverse your view than to confirm it."

    Also, as you say: "If...". It is not yet granted that anyone here is actually guilty of confirmation bias. That is not to say bias isn't here, simply that such a specific case needs to be made and defended, else it's just gaslighting.

    Absolutely.

    Here are the rules that cover these fora:

    "Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument."
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/

    It is this last clause that most of us critical analysts find being murdered by proponents of paranormal explanations.
     
  14. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I’m not a proponent, I’m open to the possibility and by that, not immediately dismissing explanations that may veer from the norm. It just seems like MR gets shut down within the first few posts of any thread he starts on the paranormal, not much of a discussion. Every thread may turn into several pages but it’s just the same refutes that were from the first page. Lol In other words, no one really takes the discussion seriously, and you can...even if you don’t take the topic seriously.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    I should point out that no one on this site has been more patient with, and engaged longer with MR than me. There are a dozen threads here that are nearing thousands of posts wherein I discussed with him calmly, in good faith and at great length how human perception works, and how it is highly fallible, with reference after reference - and he would have none of it.

    Same with video interpretation. Literally, we've been back and forth for thousands of posts. (Much of this was about paranormal "ghosts".) He utterly and categorically refused to believe that human perception (and video recording) is a less than accurate representation of the real world, despite the fact that it is its own science.

    He simply denies the well-documented phenomenon of paredolia - "the tendency for perception to impose a meaningful interpretation on a nebulous stimulus, usually visual, so that one sees an object, pattern or meaning where there is none".

    --

    Notice his post #3, above, were he can't even bring himself to admit that the video I attached is quite obviously a terrible depiction of reality. He facetiously pretends a black/white dichotomy: video recordings are either all perfectly accurate, or they're (and I quote) "...too damn unreliable to tell us anything".

    So I'm not just being a meanie. He is the author of his own downfall.

    --

    Look at the last contribution he made, which is in the "In defense of Space Aliens" thread:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-251#post-3679465

    It is a report of lights (and radar bogeys) in the sky above a military ship. And that's it.

    There is absolutely zero cause for this in to be a thread about any kind of UFOs - let alone a thread entitled "In defense of space aliens".
    It's spam, through and through.

    What's happened is, MR has shifted his tactic, to the detriment of the thread. He has been unable to make a case for piloted UFOs, so he has back-pedaled to the very generously-bounded definition of UFO He's now taken to posting about anything that flies and has not been identified - which includes aircraft.

    That is not what that thread is about. And it's not in good faith.

    --

    If MR wants to open a discussion in good faith about aircraft spotted at night, he is welcome to. But it is every member's right and duty to keep threads on-topic as well as to demand critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument."


    In fact, when MR does open threads in good faith, I tend to engage him in good faith.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2021
  16. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I believe you and have seen your interactions with MR. You and billvon seem to have good faith, and there are others. Not for me to police this section of course, but have made a few mental notes over the years with these types of topics. They just seem to stop before they've even begun because people frequently assume that MR has no new material or possible proof to discuss. Because's it's MR and he has a reputation of being seen as gullible, etc etc...

    But, who is to say that MR hasn't engaged in good faith?
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,492
    LOL Didn't quite forsee this thread degenerating so quickly into Dave's whiney personal therapy session about dealing with me online. Talk about going off topic. What were we discussing again? Oh yeah. Photos and videos not being reliable. Yeah..I'm still not buying it. Artifacts as a general rule are very rare and appear like artifacts, not like objects that are actually there.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2021
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    The thread title/OP is one example of how our experiences of the world around us (including that of mechanically enhanced senses such as video) are sufficient for keeping us alive on a day-to-day basis, but terrible at giving us an accurate view of reality whenever reality drifts outside our common experience.


    Here's another example:


    Why we're [virtually]* blind to the color blue
    ... we see with our brain as much as with our eyes

    https://calebkruse.com/10-projects/seeing-blue/?utm_source=digg

    "Our brain extracts some color information from the blue channel, but delegates sharpness to the red and green channels which are in focus."

    "This is one of many examples of our brains being much more powerful than our eyes. Too often we think of our eyes as perfect cameras. However, it is the brain that is able to accommodate for all of the optical shortcomings in order to resolve the world."


    The take-away: The brain is interpolating what it expects to be there - whether it really is or not.


    *Added by me
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2021
  19. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Aha! Now we see the true hidden meaning behind Project Blue Book! Or not? Not.
    Such factoids do nothing to undermine the huge evidence for nonmundane UFO encounters. Numerous high grade radar detections/recordings for one are quite impervious to 'blue blindness'.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    Would anyone like to guess whether Q is serious this time or just joking around?
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    In the Fifties and Sixties ; photo op was much harder to do .
     
  23. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Q’s always serious.
     

Share This Page