DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
An extreme example of what kind of artifacting video can produce, even in excellent lighting conditions.
Yep..I'm convinced. Videos and photos are just too damn unreliable to tell us anything.Well, that changes everything.
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.”Yep..I'm convinced. Videos and photos are just too damn unreliable to tell us anything.![]()
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.”
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?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.
We don't. Which is why every case is examined on its own merits.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.
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.)There doesn’t seem to be a happy medium within these topics. Confirmation bias possibly in either direction?
No one should be coming to a science forum and arguing their beliefs. Beliefs do not require defending.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.
Not to get nit-picky, but bias doesn't mean black or white.But if you have confirmation bias, no proof will ever be enough.
Absolutely.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.
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.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.
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.
Aha! Now we see the true hidden meaning behind Project Blue Book! Or not? Not.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
An extreme example of what kind of artifacting video can produce, even in excellent lighting conditions.
Q’s always serious.Would anyone like to guess whether Q is serious this time or just joking around?