It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does everyone use YouTube to prove/Disprove facts?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Hello all, first day I came in here I noticed that everyone had crazy claims about such; Aliens, UFO's, 911 or other Reptilian conspiracies. There were those who used Youtube as a weapon to debunk a theory or other. Some users use a YouTube link on almost all of their posts.

Now, I love technology. Don't get me wrong. Yet, I have a problem with people who paste YouTube links to prove a point, a fact or debunk. As if somehow I was to go there and actually watch the video and then change my mind because I've just seen a pirated version of something. And most of the time a video shot by a non-professional.

Saying that, I am ALL against sharing videos on the internet. For obvious reasons. Piracy. Most of the videos on YouTube are most likely from independent sources and that's fine. And I have no problem with that.

What happened to the good old days when you had to go to rent a video, go to a library and read a book. Or tell a story based on paper and not depending entirely on a bad, fuzzy looking image on a website? I'm sorry but the internet, links and videos on the internet prove nothing. All of the people in these videos transform into reptiles one time or another.

If YouTube or Utube as I call it, was not a source for negativity I would be all for it. But how can you prove that god is real by giving someone a link to Youtube? or how can you prove that that's a real UFO by linking? It cannot be done and cannot be trusted.

Therefore, At times I am annoyed at what technology has done to some people. it has given them an easy way out, an easy way to get out of an argument. They avoid the debate and simply give you a youtube link, as if all of that resolved the issue.

I don't use Youtube personally, for reasons stated: Piracy, quality, lacking official info, etc. And maybe so because sites like that are blocked on public computers at the libraries and work stations.

Yet, there are those out there who watch full lenght films on Utube. I would never EVER watch a feature film on Utube. I only watch films on THX certified theaters with a digital projector.
So, I find that advances on the internet, with internet video have become out of hand and have become 100% solid. As if they were official. Do you find yourself in the same situation or is it just me because I can't watch these videos at work? discuss.

Jedimiller.



apc

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Why can't you just let kids be kids? Why wont you let them dream?!

I don't get it. You can either roll your eyes and move on, or rant about it on the Internet.

Personally I just don't use YouTube in an effort to combat global warming.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Who is "everyone"?

Personally I prefer to use peer-reviewed papers wherever possible when attempting to prove or disprove facts. Preferably those hosted on sites ending with '.edu' a.k.a. educational institutions. Barring that I'll get several sources that corroborate each other.

By the way, this does sound like a rant. YouTube is here to stay, no matter what the dinosaurs known as the MPAA would like you to believe. You can't stop the BitTorrent of technology


Besides, what makes you think videos that you rent from stores dealing with alternative topics are any more legit (in their content) than stuff posted on YouTube?

Edit: Grrrrammar

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
true. no point in complaining. Guess it's just a rant. I just don't get all this Myspace, Youtube, facebook thing. you know what I mean? it's like video games to some kids.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
I just don't get all this Myspace, Youtube, facebook thing.


Neither do I. But I prefer to embrace technology and adapt and change with the times. Thoughts such as that on this particular thread is just kind of counter-productive and simplistic to me. It's a case of not looking at the deeper underlying reasons.

Anyway, that was a rant, no doubt. I do and do not understand neo-luddites.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Neither do I. But I prefer to embrace technology and adapt and change with the times.



I do embrace the internet, but for educational purposes only. and ATS is very educational from my point of view. I used to play with toys, role play and do normal things on the playground. kids don't do that now. everykid I talk to nowaways says something like, "did you see that video on youtube?"



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I wanted to show a friend what 'Kickboxing' looked like back in the '70s. So I looked on youtube and there was a vid with a fight by Jeff Smith.

That's not 'proving' anything, not pirating anything, Jeff is not losing PPV revenue from a fight he did back in 1978.

Looking at a Vince Palamara vid on JFK; Vince posted those or designated a friend to post them free. He wants to get the word out.

Don't like 'em? Nobody's forcing you. Pirating? Hardly.

Just what is your objection? Are you losing revenue on a project you did?

Have you never used a 'google image search' to post any pics?

Ever read a newspaper that someone left lying on a park bench? If so, you denied Hearst Enterprises of a quarter, you bad boy, you.


Hey, ever speed read a book or magazine in a bookstore? Maybe not. If you did, how is that different?



(just teasing)



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


I bet the previous generation were lamenting the same thing, but with the focus of their lament being PlayStation and Nintendo


What is normal changes, too.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Actually, I was just about to begin a thread on much this same topic.

My main issue with the use of Youtube and other freely available video found on the 'net is that none of it has any kind of provenance. You have absolutely no idea where any of this stuff has been. How many hands has it passed through? How many doctorings? How many format changes? Etc. Etc.

I just don't quite see the point of using a Youtube video to prove the existence of an alien presence on the moon.

Is it being used because that's all we've got and it's simple?

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, Youtube (and Wikipedia) are poor substitutes for real, honest, labor-intensive research.

Thank you for your time.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Doesn't anyone get it?

The internet is changing the very face of human civilization. It has become extremely difficult to control and contain information, and people from all walks of life now have access to vast amounts of information they never had access to in the past. The closeness among digital communities throughout the internet rivals that of traditional localized communities around the world. My wife's best friend lives in Denmark and we talk to more now than when she lived a mile away.

Online communities like MySpace and FaceBook are burgeoning entities that will evolve in time. In an increasingly dangerous world, virtual communities will become more and more appealing as opposed to real life ties.

You may not like it, but this is the future and it's inevitable. Globalization has already started, and it's not going to stop. The internet is the key to globalization, and we're not ever going to give that up for anything.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:47 AM
link   
i skipped most of the posts..
ill just say..
i was reading a post on some experiment with quantum mechanics..
some old experiment that i hadnt read about before..

there was a youtube link witha video explaining the experiment..
it made it alot easier to understand the facts and concepts of the experiment.

youtube can be a tool if the content is rellevant.

bleh

-G



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I don't really see a problem with using a youtube video in a post as such. I think it all comes down to the idea of trying to find multiple sources, grade the reliability of the source, and trying to check them. Using just one source for anything is not really a good idea. In some cases like a UFO sighting a video can be a very important source, along with witness statements, information about the area it was taken and so on. Another example would be if a claim is made that a person said something at a press conference, then there may be a video of that event, and that video would be very useful to help verify they actually said that.

A youtube video has a value, after all even propaganda is valuable, as it can help you see what one side is trying to push, and that can be interesting. That value may not be much depending on the topic, but added together with other sources they can be useful.

They can be just another way into a subject, and quite a good way to hook people into a topic. There have been a few topics I got into this way, when it is unlikely I would have read a book about that topic. After watching a video I will tend to think about the key things that interested me, and do a google search for those things and try and find some sources or other writings about that topic. If still interested, I may then go and read some books about the topic. So that very book I may not have bothered with in the start, actually has ended up being read just because a youtube video hooked me in.

Another way to look at it, a very skeptical mind might say that this very site is garbage, and full of half-baked nonsense, and a waste of time, and so on. As a fairly skeptical person myself on a lot of topics I try to take the view that, well, there probably is a lot of garbage here, but there are also "diamonds in the manure" just waiting to be found. If we don't even look for something, we are very unlikely to find it.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Frankly, it worries me more the fact that Google considers pages that are the target of many links more important than those that are the target of few links, making popularity more important than content, but apparently nobody knows or is interested in this.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Frankly, it worries me more the fact that Google considers pages that are the target of many links more important than those that are the target of few links, making popularity more important than content, but apparently nobody knows or is interested in this.

How else are you supposed to measure content if not by popularity on such a scale? Not only would somebody need to read every website to determine it's content, they woudl also need to be qualified in that field. I certainly couldn't tell you if a website on particle physics was genius for pure BS.

Using popularity is the only viable alternative. ATs does the same thing with it's Flag system.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoterica
 


That is why I don't like the flag system. Systems like that are easy to circumvent, making them unreliable.

Google has the same problem, you can make a page saying that the cure for AIDS was discovered by green men from Mars and make lots of pages pointing to that page, make posts in one or more blogs and forums pointing to it and the result is that when someone looks for "cure" and "AIDS" your page may be the first to appear, when in fact it has nothing real about what people were looking for.

A better approach, that would at least make those pages that have a whole dictionary just to appear on a Google search fail on most searches, would be what Altavista used, the "NEAR" keyword, giving us the possibility to search for "AIDS near cure" and find the pages where the word "AIDS" appears within 5 (or any other number of) words to the left or right of the word "cure".
 


To make this look like an on-topic post, I would like to add that this is the same problem that affects YouTube, content.

Do you remember the "Haiti UFO" case? It was the most popular video on YouTube but it was a fake.

It was visibly a fake, but even so it was by far the most popular video.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
It was a good fake though. Well worth seeing, if just to see how good hoaxes are nowadays.

Every system has it's flaws. Google works well for what the vast majority of people use it for. I personally believe the flag/star system should work both ways- If we think a psot it utter garbage or a waste of time "negative flag" it or something. Of course, that's open to a ton of abuse and lots of hurt egos. But I suppose the logic is that bad threads are automatically ignored by the general ATS public , so flags are just the "best of the best." That of course assumes the general ATS population is made up of logical people


Also to stay On-topic, I forget who said it here on ATS, but it was along the lines of "Posting someone else's video from YouTube is not research." I think the majority of YouTube posters want to contribute, but just don't have anything new to say, so they post "an interesting video." Most of us don't have anything new to say, msot of us are just linking to other people's work, so I really don't think anybody has room to complain



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


If you use the right search operators on Google, you can filter out the irrelevant crap.

Google Guide Quick Reference: Google Advanced Operators (Cheat Sheet)

It's how you use the technology that really matters. Same as with YouTube.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 

Thanks for the that link, but I am already aware of the operators Google uses, and we can filter some of the crap, but those who create the pages to "attract" results from Google are aware of they way it works.

Unfortunately, the most useful (for me) would be the NEAR operator or something like that that would let us search two words on a page but relating one to the other.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Unfortunately, the most useful (for me) would be the NEAR operator or something like that that would let us search two words on a page but relating one to the other.


Then try this one:
Google API Proximity Search (GAPS)

That's what you're looking for, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


That's it, thanks! That I didn't knew.
 
 


Sorry, everybody, for taking this thread of-topic, but at least it had a good result, at least for me.

Isn't ATS a great place?

Now, lets forget these last posts (unless you are interested in proximity searches) and continue with the previous program.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join