Merged UFO @ Jerusalem, 2011. Call Captain-D

kageki said:
I've not stated my beliefs and that wasn't the point of the post. It was to show that a real fake video doesn't prove anything.
Click to expand...
No, the point of your post was to bring in your unfounded belief in the CT regarding 9/11.

In the Jerusalem UFO case, a video has been presented. Nothing more.
So all we have to go on is a video. (well 4 video's now, 5 if you include my Gay Rodeo one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSUO3vBmGUI).

Debunking a video may not prove anything, but like I already said earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is not mine anyway. So far, I have seen nothing from the 'bleevers' that in any way validates any of these videos as genuine.
 
Stray Cat said:
A fake reaction to something not really there is acting.


The links to the various videos are in the thread along with sometimes quite detailed deconstructions of them. If you want to discuss the issue, it would be nice if you were up to speed with the details.
Click to expand...

How would you know it is a fake reaction?

Do you know the languages spoken in the other videos that were not in english?
 
Angel Love said:
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zX9wPW3NMw&feature=related
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K3Ih-o4qiQ&feature=related
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM0B6C54jbI&feature=related
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u23BiBHvZao&feature=related
Click to expand...

Thank you. I have read this thread and I believe this was needed.

"The sound track on video 3 (where you don't see anyone) is a collection of disparate clips where the people could have been reacting to anything from a fireworks display to the opening of a new pizza shop."
Click to expand...

Video 3 according to this list is with the american tourists who clearly say "ufo". Wrong video Straycat?
 
Stray Cat said:
No, the point of your post was to bring in your unfounded belief in the CT regarding 9/11.

In the Jerusalem UFO case, a video has been presented. Nothing more.
So all we have to go on is a video. (well 4 video's now, 5 if you include my Gay Rodeo one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSUO3vBmGUI).

Debunking a video may not prove anything, but like I already said earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is not mine anyway. So far, I have seen nothing from the 'bleevers' that in any way validates any of these videos as genuine.
Click to expand...

No the point was that this fake video doesn't prove a point as I explained. It is not about 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqzeed-Iv5E&feature=player_embedded
 
Akhenaten said:
A real fake video doesn't prove anything???

Stop the presses!!!
Click to expand...

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Removed link. Do not repost this video in this thread.


Does that fake video prove the 9/11 videos were fake? Not necessarily right?

This is not about 9/11. I am just taking issue with the notion of a video being a possible fake just because you can make fake videos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stray Cat said:
Because the video is a fake.


The languages spoken don't make a fake video suddenly become genuine.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I&feature=player_embedded

Those people are "fake"? How do you prove that?

I was wondering how you came to this conclusion:

"The sound track on video 3 (where you don't see anyone) is a collection of disparate clips where the people could have been reacting to anything from a fireworks display to the opening of a new pizza shop."
 
Stray Cat said:
Yes, it's odd how when the burden of proof is correctly weighted, it can not be met.
It's not my responsibility to prove anything. The burden of proof is upon those who claim something that goes against science and evidence.
Click to expand...

It's your responsibility to prove these videos are fake as you claim. So far I am not entirely convinced. I don't know what all this "burden of proof" stuff you are talking here.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1] This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence that underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defense might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. However the incidence of burden of proof is affected by common law, statute and procedure.

The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.
Click to expand...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kageki said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I&feature=player_embedded

Those people are "fake"? How do you prove that?
Click to expand...
What an odd question.
No, the people are not fake.

kageki said:
I was wondering how you came to this conclusion:

"The sound track on video 3 (where you don't see anyone) is a collection of disparate clips where the people could have been reacting to anything from a fireworks display to the opening of a new pizza shop."
Click to expand...
Because the background image of the Temple of the Rock is a still photograph with a UFO superimposed on it. Therefore, the people can not be actually reacting to it as it wasn't there. We can therefore safely assume that they weren't there either.

Besides that, any inspection of the sound wave left by the audio track (when examined in an audio editing programme) reveals split second gaps were there is no noise at all, no voices, no background noise. This is where the different clips have been (poorly) edited together.
 
kageki said:
It's your responsibility to prove these videos are fake as you claim.
Click to expand...
No, science says that these thing do not happen. So far no one has provided any proof that would be compelling enough for science to change it's mind.
Therefore, the default position is that anything that defies science needs proving. It is not science's responsibility to disprove every crack pot idea that someone on the internet comes along with.

kageki said:
I don't know what all this "burden of proof" stuff you are talking here.
Click to expand...
That might be part of the problem then.
 
kageki said:
It's your responsibility to prove these videos are fake as you claim. So far I am not entirely convinced. I don't know what all this "burden of proof" stuff you are talking here.
Click to expand...

I have to ask, have you in fact, seen these videos? I’m guessing maybe you haven’t as some are not only clearly faked, but are clearly horribly faked as well. Are you visually impaired somehow and using a brail monitor?

:confused:
 
Stray Cat said:
What an odd question.
No, the people are not fake.


Because the background image of the Temple of the Rock is a still photograph with a UFO superimposed on it. Therefore, the people can not be actually reacting to it as it wasn't there. We can therefore safely assume that they weren't there either.

Besides that, any inspection of the sound wave left by the audio track (when examined in an audio editing programme) reveals split second gaps were there is no noise at all, no voices, no background noise. This is where the different clips have been (poorly) edited together.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I&feature=player_embedded

Wasn't it your contention that these people are acting? Your logic is that since you believe this video to be fake that these people then must be acting. That doesn't follow to me.

If these people are acting then they or someone had to come up with the dialogue. It was simple, but still appropriate to the video. I find it a bit hard to believe that these people would go so far as acting to make this fake video. Acting and dialogue isn't needed to make a fake ufo video after all. So far you haven't made a case that these people really are acting.
 
kageki said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I&feature=player_embedded

Wasn't it your contention that these people are acting? Your logic is that since you believe this video to be fake that these people then must be acting. That doesn't follow to me.

If these people are acting then they or someone had to come up with the dialogue. It was simple, but still appropriate to the video. I find it a bit hard to believe that these people would go so far as acting to make this fake video. Acting and dialogue isn't needed to make a fake ufo video after all. So far you haven't made a case that these people really are acting.
Click to expand...

You really need to get up to speed on this subject. The link you posted is not the video he is describing. Of course, if a video is shown to be a hoax, then the voices have to be either stolen from another clip that was not hoaxed or people pretending (i.e. acting) they were seeing something.
 
kageki said:
Your logic is that since you believe this video to be fake that these people then must be acting. That doesn't follow to me.
Click to expand...


You don't get it? The images of the video are fake. Hence, the people are acting.

Why is that hard to understand?

kageki said:
If these people are acting then they or someone had to come up with the dialogue. It was simple, but still appropriate to the video. I find it a bit hard to believe that these people would go so far as acting to make this fake video. Acting and dialogue isn't needed to make a fake ufo video after all.
Click to expand...


So because you have people in the video reacting (with dialogue, even!) to what they're supposed to be seeing, this means it's real?

You are easily fooled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom