posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 11:28 AM
originally posted by: elevenaugust
First thing to do when it's about photo or video is to search for the original source.
Without that first step done, it's totally useless to "analyze" anything, especially that comes from YT...
I don't quite understand the logical consistency of that. You say everyone should ignore possible video evidence of something paranormal if it has
been uploaded to YouTube. Why's that? What difference does it make to reliability if you watch a video uploaded by someone you don't know or watch a
video posted to you by someone who included lots of biographical details about themselves in the accompanying letter? They could still have hoaxed
their video however much they tell you about themselves. What use, therefore, is knowing the "source" in order to evaluate whether a video is genuine
As YouTube attracts hoaxers, all videos it contains about the paranormal must be considered possible CGI (even if never actually proven subsequently).
But this can happen with any
website site that plays videos that have been submitted to them. Like the BBC and some newspapers, for example.
What source would you accept? By turning the issue of possible evidence for paranormal things into a question of what is reliable and acceptable a
priori and what is not, you have introduced a subjective element into the scientific assessment of whether a video actually counts as evidence. Your
standards and judgement may not be acceptable to someone else and other people might reject what to you is a trustworthy source. But, by insisting
that YOUR choice of source decides whether everyone can decide whether the video in question is genuine or whether it is CGI, you give yourself
permission to ignore EVERYTHING that comes from any source YOU dislike, like YouTube. When was scientific truth established by OPINIONS? Hoaxers can
send their videos to anyone. The source itself cannot guarantee reliability. Why, therefore, do you insist on knowing who made the video, when that
can tell you nothing concerning whether it contains CGI?
If you insist on advising everyone not to trust YouTube videos, then you ought to tell them not to trust any
source, as knowing it cannot
decide the paranormality of video evidence. We cannot trust a video merely because the website hosting it is "respectable," because that guarantees
nothing these days. Nor, for that matter, can we wait until you
have given your approval about where some video came from/who made it before we
are permitted to make our own judgements.
edit on 2-11-2019 by micpsi because: (no reason given)