I'd add 'Through the Purple Cloud' to that long list.
I understand what you saying, but I didn't mean "consensus" as opinion. I mean after looking at all of the evidence, the prevailing consensus is that the videos are a hoax. And I don't think it's fair to say that everything is false by default. It would be more accurate to say nothing can be definitively stated as fact until it is proven. This isn't a court of law where a person is innocent until proven guilty.
But you CAN say it's false if the evidence shows it is something else entirely. We've done that with UFOs, debunking them one at a time. If you say "Interstellar craft are here in our atmosphere" it's up to you to prove it, else it remains unproven. You can't really prove a negative, so it's unrealistic for you to demand that. If you say "THIS picture shows an interstellar craft", it can be disproved by showing it's, say, a butterfly.
Evidence needs provenance.
It's worthless without provenance.
The "teleportation" video is even worse. Even if you go back to its apparent first appearance in 2014, the original post makes no claims that they know where it came from.
We have "scientists" who conclude that the Mexican mummies are "authentic".
Given that metallurgists and material scientists keep inventing new products, and that such materials may be proprietary in foreign countries without their descriptions being part of published literature, I think that it would be extraordinarily difficult to say authoritatively "This came from a non-human source". I think the best you could hope for would be "Well, I've never seen this before!"
Yes. You basically just restated what I just said.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was that you cannot disprove a hypothesis. You can only disprove the claimed examples that go into the hypothesis.
Something that's not falsifiable doesn't deserve to be called a hypothesis.
That really depends on the hypothesis doesn't it? If a person says mountains aren't real, you can take them to see a mountain. Hypothesis disproven.
Agreed. I was using it colloquially, not scientifically, as was @JWrightBrain . Sorry!
They don't always use the physicist-approved language as they explain things through a CGI lens. Then again, I make that mistake too, you use the argot you're most used to. However, on that point, I think they are probably right, as it seemed like there was too much ability to see through what should be opaque (in he frequency range in question). Something sufficiently opaque will not give you that volumetric sum - they are correct about that complaint. However, a lot of that assumes you know what the sensor was, which we don't. So they're neither provably right or wrong, they're discussing something with incomplete information - information that should have been provided if there had been an honest attempt to know what was going on.
I think it's unlikely a match will be found, as the time is probably not the same, and the resolution is low. But it's certainly consistent. Here's on shot perspective adjusted.
What "body of evidence"? What scenario? What "advanced science"? What system?External Quote:
OK, he's got the old blow-hard sneering "We non-scientists will prove we are smarter than all of science" thing going. I personally think some snark would not go amiss in addressing his arrogance, but I'd prefer to ignore him unless and until he comes up with some evidence. I'll not hold my breath.
He's not concerned with truth, he's concerned with belief. (That's what the debunk does damage to.)
