The ULTIMATE expression of ignorance -- "Pics or it didn't happen"

page: 1
140
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+147 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I've seen credible members ridiculed, mocked, called a liar for not having pictures of their UFO, ET, or paranormal experience. Such demand for photographic evidence is ignorant and displays intellectual dishonesty by the one demanding such evidence.

First, not everyone carries a camera with them. And cell phone cameras are particularly notorious for poor quality photos, especially at night. But that's not the most important fact about photographic evidence...

Every day in the US, courts decide the outcome of criminal and civil cases on the basis of TESTIMONIAL evidence alone. Most cases don't have the photographic evidence to make or break a case, if there is any photo evidence at all. The credibility of the witness is of the utmost importance. Photos usually don't decide the case, but the credibility of the witness, as deemed by the judge or jury, does. Let this be clear: courts proclaim every day that "it happened" because of TESTIMONIAL, not photographic, evidence.

I need to ask: what makes you, the internet cruiser/squatter, so much more skilled at deciding the truthfulness of a witness or their credibility than a court? By demanding photographic evidence, you are essentially saying that the witness is not credible and therefore cannot be trusted unless they come up with a picture. How have you been able to acquire such skills as deciding the character of a person you have never met and never seen?

Let's forget, for a moment, about the UFO witness. What about history? Have you demanded from the publisher of history books photographic evidence for the claims made by the witnesses of historic events? Often, those events are witnessed by only one person, perhaps just a few. Do you deny that these events took place based on the fact that there is no photographic evidence to support the statement that the event did happen?

To those who relish the words "pics or it didn't happen" I would suggest this to you: you reveal gross ignorance by making such statement. Before the existence of cameras we had to rely on the credibility of a person making a claim of being a witness to some event. We used our judgment, hopefully in a fair manner, to decide if they were being truthful. Courts still do this today, every single day, thousands of times a day. You do it every day too with your spouse, your kids, your employees, your parents, and your friends. If I didn't know better, I would begin to think that, because your demand for pics comes within the context of a UFO sighting, you are being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the credibility of the witness by your outright dismissal of their story simply because there are no pics. You're already prejudiced against the idea of ETs, UFOs, etc and just use the "pics or it didn't happen" statement to discredit someone who is likely a truthful person. If that's what's really going on, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for being the liar you claim these witnesses to be.



+16 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


can you really trust a picture these days anyway?


+27 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeussusZ
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


can you really trust a picture these days anyway?


And that's the other issue. If someone does have a clear photo, all we'll hear is "fake!" by the same people demanding the photo.


+50 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I have never understood the need of an eyewitness to post pictorial evidence , because the usual replies follow.
1) " The pictures are too poor"
2) " The pictures are too good , so therefore must be fake "

Same with video evidence.
1) " The vid is too shakey "
2) " The vid is on Youtube , so must be fake ".
3) " The vid is too good , so must be CGI"

Eyewitnesses are in a no win situation , even if they DO provide video or pictorial evidence


+41 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
You're right.

The problem is that with most eyewitness reports there is usually absolutely nothing to do but say "Hmm. Interesting." On rare occasions important details like direction, time of day/night, elevation (not altitude, estimates of altitude are generally useless) are available. When things like this are provided there is room for discussion on possible explanations for what was seen.

When descriptions like "I saw a light that was like nothing I've ever seen before and it was huge and going 5,000 mph."....well, there's really no room for discussion. One can take it at face value and say "Wow. Gosh." or one can question the observational skills of the witness. It's been my experience that the latter is seldom well accepted. It's also been my experience in this sort of case that very often the details mentioned above, when asked about, turn out to make no sense. When asked what direction the witness may say "north". But then with a later question they will answer "It was right where the sun set." That sort of thing.

So, let's make it "Pics (or video) or there's nothing to discuss." Of course, if it isn't discussion but simply support which is sought...

edit on 12/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
S&F

In our time opinions will always come down to trust and personal experience. The ideas and possibilities are too great for all of us to believe the same thing.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
if UFO's are swarming in by the masses over the swiss alps, and someone on here is writing about it... thats cool, it makes no difference whether i believe you or not.

but if you post a vid or a bunch of pics of a mass of UFO's, ill think its crazy and tell all my friends to check it out.

a picture is worth a 1000 words

a word is worth... well, 1 word



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


S&F ESB,

I am tired of people demanding pics etc.

There is such a thing as trusting someone's word.

I am the worst person for claiming things and not presenting pics - I just think "Believe it" or "Don't believe it" - your loss.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Growing up people will only believe what they believe with testimony from someone they trust.

From there on, people will only believe testimony which has relation to what they already believe.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I agree with the OP, but it's not just in this forum, or just pictures which are causing this problem. In other forums it's the "sources or it's not true". Which means you can't have any original/local news, even if it does risk false news. The worst part of this is that people on here don't trust the "mainstream" media, but also don't trust anything is not sources from said outlets, which leaves people confused, bitter and over cynical.

To be honest, I think all posts, even the obviously trolled posts, can for the sake of arguement, be taken hypothetically as true, then let the debate follow from there. If someone posts something, it gives nothing to just add "pics or it didn't happen" or "sources or it's lies". What we should be asking is "if this is true then X, Y and Z". Given this train of thought, you will soon see if the subject is real or not or plausible or possible, which is worth alot more.

Even if something is wrong or such, to have a discussion of it's possibility gives everyone much more information.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
To all you "Pic's or it didn't happen " , people .
Try this little experiment .

Next time you see an object flying overhead . Take out your cell phone , set it up to take a picture , track said object , wait for the camera to focus and then take a few pictures .

I can wager that you didn't have enough time to capture anything at all or the pictures will be very poor.

Remember this , next time you say " pics , or it didn't happen " !

edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I agree, I find the old 'pics or it did'nt happen' thing very ignorant

I'm always up for a laugh, but replys like that add less than a missing photo

and so I just think to myself "wanker"



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


Seeing is believing.

If the person who has seen it is hallucinating then they may be aware of that fact, I think that witness testimony is some of the strongest out there, you could convict someone for murder based on some of the witness testimony surrounding UFO sightings (so to speak)

Nice point OP



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


Wow, you are taking this whole "pics or didn't happen" WAY too serious. It's just something that people say to discourage reports without visual evidence, because reports with lack of them totally contribute to discredit the subject. Many threads WITH photos or videos are usually attacked by debunkers, trolls and shills, let alone threads with no visual evidence. I guess that posters who share their experiences in forums filled with a legion of shills, are shooting themselves in the foot. That's simply a matter of be pragmatical. People are doing themselves a huge favor by don't reporting anything without presenting visual evidence.

I don't mean insult you, but IMO your rant is just childish.
edit on 12/5/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 12/5/2011 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
First, not everyone carries a camera with them. And cell phone cameras are particularly notorious for poor quality photos, especially at night. But that's not the most important fact about photographic evidence...

True



Every day in the US, courts decide the outcome of criminal and civil cases on the basis of TESTIMONIAL evidence alone. Most cases don't have the photographic evidence to make or break a case, if there is any photo evidence at all. The credibility of the witness is of the utmost importance. Photos usually don't decide the case, but the credibility of the witness, as deemed by the judge or jury, does. Let this be clear: courts proclaim every day that "it happened" because of TESTIMONIAL, not photographic, evidence


Not true at all. There is more than the witnesses testimonies being presented in a trial, like physical evidence. Photos, media, videos, phone records, and the like are accepted as evidence and help to boost the claims for each witness who testifies and often the witness is there to help go over the physical evidence being presented so the jury understands. And if you are talking character witnesses, they are rarely found to be credible by jurors. the defense does not have the burden of proof
Its up to the Jury to decide which testimony they believe
Circumstantial evidence is not to be considered as fact in cases

If what you say was true how could a jury choose a side? They choose one side, and that means other witnesses were NOT believed. You seem to miss that
You will hear jurors say that well they decided not guilty because the physical evidence was not there for proof


I need to ask: what makes you, the internet cruiser/squatter, so much more skilled at deciding the truthfulness of a witness or their credibility than a court? By demanding photographic evidence, you are essentially saying that the witness is not credible and therefore cannot be trusted unless they come up with a picture. How have you been able to acquire such skills as deciding the character of a person you have never met and never seen?

See my answer above


You need to understand just how many members have posted fanatical tales on here with no pics, then when asked, they flee or they do come back with pics and are caught faking. Some dont know you can check the exif data on their photos and you can catch them, so asking is a good idea to deal with it early on.

Its understandable a ufo sighting happens in an unscheduled instant and for a very short period of time, so having a camera handy is in my opinion highly unlikely, but having any physical evidence certainly helps as we do not know these witnesses personally
edit on 5-12-2011 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I really cannot believe the stuborness of some people who actually believe that in this whole vast Universe or even Multiverse.....we Humans are the end all to end all.

This is the attitude that some associates just love. Why go around debunking when the public will do it for you. Hey...and as far as I am concerned...that is probably a good thing for the next 500 years or so.

I post here so I can deal with my own Demons....and great thing about it is....even if I were to be so stupid as to say something that was classified....not that I would....but even if I did....no one would care! No one would think twice about it because they all have a real good grip on what is reality and what is not. And they would like to keep it that way.

And so it shall.....for at least 500 years. Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FidelityMusic
 

Growing up I believed that UFOs were most likely ET visitors.
I don't believe that so much any more.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 




I really cannot believe the stuborness of some people who actually believe that in this whole vast Universe or even Multiverse.....we Humans are the end all to end all.

I don't believe that. I haven't met many people that believe that, in person or on ATS.
But I have very strong doubts that UFOs have anything to do with ET.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I think people are just trying to be silly and do not actually require pics. To me, it's similar to saying "first" , as in being the first person to reply. It's like a mild dose of trolling.





top topics
 
140
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join