Is video data enough to make any "scientific" consideration?

[jeremyjr]

It appears that some people here in this site do not believe that video data is enough to make any scientific consideration, that video data is not even enough to merit any further study of something for which there is only video data. The security people monitoring many video feeds 24/7 may disagree with that assessment, many life and death decisions are taken using exclusively that kind of data, but for this people video data is insufficient to make any kind of actionable "decision".

 

I would like to hear your opinions regarding that: Is video data enough to make any "scientific" consideration?

[Strange]

 

that video data is not even enough to merit any further study of something for which there is only video data

 

That is a straw man argument. No one has said that.

 

On the other hand, if rely only on video evidence, then you will conclude that a stage magician can saw a woman in half.

 

The problem is not the video evidence itself, if is jumping to unsupported conclusions based on that limited evidence.

[swansont]

At issue is what level of conclusion one can draw from a video, and that depends on several factors. As Strange has already said, the claim you have made is a strawman.

[billiards]

Also the question is vague. What do you mean when you say `any "scientific" consideration'?

[Phi for All]

The security people monitoring many video feeds 24/7 may disagree with that assessment, many life and death decisions are taken using exclusively that kind of data, but for this people video data is insufficient to make any kind of actionable "decision".

 

Security people monitoring video feeds 24/7 demand superior quality video that shows size relationship and focus that help them determine accurately whether the subject is an intruder posing a threat or just a bunch of Mylar balloons someone left at the front door of the building. They don't stake their reputations by making actionable decisions, like whether to call the cops or not, on vague and questionable data.

[jeremyjr]

 

Security people monitoring video feeds 24/7 demand superior quality video that shows size relationship and focus that help them determine accurately whether the subject is an intruder posing a threat or just a bunch of Mylar balloons someone left at the front door of the building. They don't stake their reputations by making actionable decisions, like whether to call the cops or not, on vague and questionable data.

 

Your are completely wrong with that, many video feeds are really with very poor quality, at night very grainy too and even with these conditions these security people that I deeply respect make usually right decisions. Today many medical procedures are done using video feeds, many internal organs problems are detected by a correct analysis of minimal details. Making a generalized allusion to "Mylar balloons" is very simplistic and shows clearly the lack of any serious analysis on your part, let me tell you that you are absolutely wrong, time and more evidence will show that and I will not stop here using any angle to show that your position is untenable unless you banned me from this site, that of course will not deter me either.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

This thread is on the use of video evidence to make a scientific point. Not on your evidence for atmospheric anomalies. You had your chance on that topic and unless you have new evidence (in our usage of the word) then that topic is staying locked. You do not get to open multiple threads on topics.

 

This thread will stick to the OP or be locked.

 

Do not respond to this mod note. Report it if you really must discuss its contents

 

 

[swansont]

We have yet to see any serious analysis on your part, i.e. any analysis a scientist would take seriously.

 

Grainy video feeds aren't used to make detailed analysis, but even they have include things in their view that can give context to what is seen, and are generally in decent focus. Scientists actually have calibrations to show size and signal strength, if that's what they want to measure with their video.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

jeremyjr, you've been asked to stick to this topic and stop bringing up closed threads. Further attempts to promote your YouTube channel will be hidden since they also violate the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

If you look beyond your Galileo complex, you might see that nobody is denying your video exists. Once again, the topic is whether or not such video is sufficient to allow conclusions to be made when such video has no reference points, focus, or objective methodology used in its interpretation.

[jeremyjr]

!

Moderator Note

jeremyjr, you've been asked to stick to this topic and stop bringing up closed threads. Further attempts to promote your YouTube channel will be hidden since they also violate the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

If you look beyond your Galileo complex, you might see that nobody is denying your video exists. Once again, the topic is whether or not such video is sufficient to allow conclusions to be made when such video has no reference points, focus, or objective methodology used in its interpretation.

 

 

So we are talking about video data here and we can not use any video sample? or any still/frame image for that matter?

 

Now responding to this "If you look beyond your Galileo complex, you might see that nobody is denying your video exists", is not that disrespectful? Are you not abusing your position as moderator in here to do that and very likely delete any "in kind" answer to that insult?

 

Again you are wrong, deeply wrong and in the more basic scientific way. You have failed to made a simple meaningful analysis of the evidence presented here and effectively you are censoring a topic that you really do not understand, your lack of basic understanding and preconceptions is crystal clear. But that will not stop anything, this is just one more public forum of the many available out there to spread the truth about reality that you are trying very hard to deny, your really are living in delusion and denial.

[John Cuthber]

Simple yes or no question:

Is this video evidence of space ship racing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_krCKECpzrU

[swansont]

Now responding to this "If you look beyond your Galileo complex, you might see that nobody is denying your video exists", is not that disrespectful? Are you not abusing your position as moderator in here to do that and very likely delete any "in kind" answer to that insult?

 

You are insisting you are right with what is, at best, feeble evidence, and claiming persecution. Sounds like a Galileo gambit to me.

 

What deletions?