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

Im going to save this thread and any time I see some one asking for photos I am going to link them to this thread.

I agree with the OP on this subject. "Pics or it didn't happen" isn't a question, it's a statement to an OP that the writer believe the OP is lying. It could be used as a statement of humor, but I believe there's only been one thread I've seen on ATS where I knew the statement was meant as humor.

If the person who writes it really want's more details or 'proof', then they should be asking specific follow-up questions. POITH not only violates the one line rule, but adds nothing to the discussion. I feel those who use it should be warned by the moderators and if they continue to use it, they should be banned.

I was once infatuated with the idea of ET's and Allayunz but then I realised they're probably not real.


Not one single photo/video has surfaced in the last 50 years that shows THE REAL McCOY! NOTHING! ZERO!

Will it happen? Probably, but not in my life time and I'm 25.

As for paranormal and the like.... pffft. Chuck that in with the holy byebul, yanno?

I Ain't fraid no ghost!

Originally posted by Besseb
I was once infatuated with the idea of ET's and Allayunz but then I realised they're probably not real.


Not one single photo/video has surfaced in the last 50 years that shows THE REAL McCOY! NOTHING! ZERO!

Will it happen? Probably, but not in my life time and I'm 25.

As for paranormal and the like.... pffft. Chuck that in with the holy byebul, yanno?

I Ain't fraid no ghost!

Judging by your views , it sounds like you really don't belong here at ATS. Unless you plan on becomming a TROLL .

To me the Pics or it didn't happen is simply part of a bigger agenda and that is...
....simply an extension of the Govt. sponsored story as pertains to UFOs in general and by Project Bluebook which was meant to sweep the entire UFO hysteria under the rug.

The agenda hasn't changed folks !

And in case you have forgotten it is to keep the masses commonly known here as the "Sheeple" believing what they are told by the Govt. about the subject of UFOs in general.

The same applies to many if not most controversial topics here on ATS I am observing.

I think that sometimes people here forget what the true purpose of ATS is....and coincidentally why we cannot discuss many topics that coincidentally go against the Govt's agenda of what we are told to "Believe".

On that note, the only thing that I can say is to not always accept things for their face value....as well as to not forget to look at the bigger picture called History.


Peace

I think it humorous as well that the one easiest thing to fake...are pictures and videos. No matter how good...all can be faked. So....thats not proof at all...that it happened. And that line cant stand as any kind of "proof" or else.!!

Originally posted by markymint
If you can't filter & sumise written information for yourself then is a discussion forum really the place for you to frequent?

That about sums it up. Thanks!

Originally posted by markymint
The "poidh" approach is probably also killing off some people's enthusiasm to post. It's evident a lot of people lurk and wait for the right time to talk about their story. And the more threads that are filled with "poidh" the more likely certain gems of witness accounts etc will never be told. It would be great if it was enforced a little harder that a reply like that to what, is to some, quite a sensitive issue and not just a big joke - would be great, and maybe encourage more people to come forward without fear of ridicule.

You're right about this. The "POIDH" is aggressive, when you think about it. It bullies people who simply want to tell their story. They aren't looking for a fight or even to be placed on the witness stand. I'm sure many have been discouraged to post, or if they do post they just don't go back to their own thread because of the attacks.

reply to post by Visiting ESB


I wouldn't worry too much about them. People who post those comments are really saying.

"I want to be entertained."

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Visiting ESB

 

It's a joke dude.
It's the shortest way for people to say they aren't interested if you aren't going to deliver. In this day and age pics should never be a problem.

Dude...then why respond if not interested? It's ignorant. Period.

reply to post by paraclete1


Thing is, when you open a topic there's basically a deman that you deliver as much information as possible and that means not just 10 lines of text like "OMG! I just walked with my walk and while he was taking a # i saw a big UFO! It floated around an than vanished in the clouds!". Sadly most topics in the UFO section are like that, some text, no pictures, no further proof, vague information (sometimes not even a time or the exact spot where it happened).
If people than say they want proof, nobody can blame them and pictures are the best proof.

You, me and i guess everyone else went to Kindergarten and School, right? Remember the time when kids came up with the most outlandish stories, like "OMG, yesterday (insert famous person) visit our house". Back then we never believed such crap, so why should we believe fake stories on ATS?

And about 'respected members': One can never be sure, just because someone is registered for some time, doesn't give him more credibility. A User may be online here for 5 years, but when he claims he saw something, without delivering further proof, he's not credible and one should not be so naive and believe it.
I saw at other websites and message boards that 'respected member' don't mean anything. I saw that at one site where a contributor and beloved user suddenly went crazy and faked his own death, just for the fun of it. Something like that can happen here, a 'respected member' pulling a prank.

So, yes, there's nothing wrong with "Pics or it didn't happen". Because without any proof, any pictures/videos, there's nothing to discuss, except for most of the time outlandish sounding claims by one person.

People in court are under oath and connecting witnesses are called in to verify a witnesses claims and their public standing trust in the comunity and other factors such as job description are physically proven. If your going to compare evidence submitted on ATS to evidence submitted in a court their are many differences indeed. A judge or in this case ATS moderator would have to send out jury duties on selected qualities or each jurur and have them register at ATS just like they would in court. A moderator would have to be present so if the claimant or defendant would have some one to to say objection overrulled if one line of reasoning did not fit into the rules of the testimony. Alll these things are important in swaying a jury and discovering the truth.

Originally posted by Perhaps
reply to post by Visiting ESB

 

You raise many credible points and I'm not such a great fan of the "pics or it didn't happen" mantra either.

However, using the processes within the Court of Law as an analogy...

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.

... it's fair to say that a solitary witness, without collaborative evidence, would be placed under extreme cross examination to justify the veracity of their claim.

Such is ATS.

Peace

edit on 5-12-2011 by Perhaps because: typo + add

I'm in court at least twice a week and that doesn't always happen, and I wouldn't call it "extreme". Thorough, yes. Extreme, no. And, that's what these forums are about -- a forum to allow questions to determine whether the person is being truthful.

reply to post by tpg65


Very insightful post.

I tried to capture a running squirrel with my camera / recorder and couldn't.

Now, what we saw (the four of us) sometime around 1963 - 1964 was way way way up there, thought it was another star at first until it started zig zagging aound. Not much bigger than the period here.

But, this thing when from one side to the other, left to right, up to down (over head) so fast, even if you had a recorder you couldn't have caught it............I'm talking so fast if you blinked you would have missed it's movement and again, my brother in law, was a no nonsense man, did not believe in ghost, little green men from mars, esp, no paranormal stuff...............until that one night, he grabbed us quickly and ushered us into the house.

We were never allowed to star gaze again and every night around dusk, he made sure we were all inside - no more playing out in the fields after dusk.

Never saw my brother in law scared, except that one night..........he was a tough, no nonsense, archie bunker kind of guy.

Again, with our three dimensional equipment and senses maybe we are not able to "see" everything going on.

It's like being tuned into one radio station, doesn't mean other stations aren't in existence, we're just not tuned into them at the moment.

You've brought up some good points and very reasonable, intelligent discussion which is what ATS is all about.

Originally posted by Foxy1
People in court are under oath and connecting witnesses are called in to verify a witnesses claims and their public standing trust in the comunity and other factors such as job description are physically proven. If your going to compare evidence submitted on ATS to evidence submitted in a court their are many differences indeed. A judge or in this case ATS moderator would have to send out jury duties on selected qualities or each jurur and have them register at ATS just like they would in court. A moderator would have to be present so if the claimant or defendant would have some one to to say objection overrulled if one line of reasoning did not fit into the rules of the testimony. Alll these things are important in swaying a jury and discovering the truth.

Again, these forums are meant to bring out the truth, if possible. Do you really need a photo to tell whether someone is credible? In our daily lives, do we need to have a jury commissioned, a judge sitting on the bench, etc in order to determine whether someone is telling the truth? Do you go to every non-fiction book publisher and demand photos or a jury?

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?

reply to post by Visiting ESB


I find it odd that these lazy statements by some of us is renting space in your head.

But the fact is that along with the no data stats you quote undoubtedly contain people wrongly convicted or ruled against. And here in the US we, the squatters and cruiser ARE the jury who decides the outcome of the cases you speak of.

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by UnivoxSuperfuzz
I can't believe anyone on this website agrees with the OP.

I agree with the OP .
I also find the phrase ignorant .

Thanks! Funny how anyone can find a way to defend it.

Originally posted by tpg65
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

yeah you r right too much desinfo agents in this site...
2nd

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Visiting ESB

 

How can asking for pics to support an unbelievable story be 'ignorant'?

edit on 5-12-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

Because it is the only acceptable means for some people to believe anything. THAT'S ignorant and shows that they have no capacity to judge testimony. When you can't judge credibility of a witness without photographic evidence and then claim that "it didn't happen" with absolute certainty -- THAT'S ignorant.

It is NOT about pics or no pics.

It is rather an expression of the times in which we live. Look around you. All we see are people in what used to be respected posts of society betraying their trust. Many are being discredited and found to be totally untrustworthy. No one feels they can trust another person any more. We all tend to respond with great scepticism. This is just the results of a world such as we find ourselves in. I'm old enough to remember when the phrase, "A mans honor is in his word" really ment something. Today...

NO HONOR - NO TRUST