Tracking the Chupacabra

[stphrz]

softbeard:

Someone making what you perceive as an unwarranted leap in logic (if this then that) is not a straw man argument.

A straw man argument is when you unfairly extrapolate the real views of someone to views they have not expressed then attack those extrapolated views.

For example, anti-abortion activists do this all the time. They try to say that because you believe in a woman's right to choose you are a horrible monster because you think it's ok to kill babies.

 

[softbeard]

You might want to look into logical fallacies so that you more accurately use the term "straw man argument".

Set up a faulty, easily-debunked argument. Call it a straw-man.
Associate the straw-man with the main target argument. The association will usually be using faulty/deceptive logic.
The target is more resilient to debunking and difficult to attack directly.
Destroy the straw-man. Claim the main target argument is destroyed due to its association with the straw-man.

I may have taken liberties on the `straw-man` term as normally used.
Still, the logic is unchanged.

 

[softbeard]

You are embarrassing yourself.

Cool! Coming from you I must be doing something right. But, believe it or not, now I really gotta do something that puts food on my table!

 

[softbeard]

Lance, I think following the logic is more important than following percise use of terminology, though I do appreciate the need to be consistent with terminology to avoid confusion.
As for opinions and embarassment; why Lance, really I didn't know you cared, and I think that topic misses the point of the discussion.
Anyhow, the feedback is appreciated. If there is a strong definition of straw-man that I am mis-applying to this situation, then I will correct my terminology.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

In January of this year, a series of videos showing what appeared to be a UFO hovering over Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock caused a stir. As Discovery News space producer Ian O’Neill wrote, "The footage shows the light drop and seemingly hover just above the shrine. After a few moments, and a brief flash of a strobe, the light took off, disappearing into the night sky. Videos have surfaced of the event and have since gone viral on YouTube."
Based upon my experience investigating images of UFOs and other "unexplained" phenomena, O'Neill asked for my analysis. I researched both the video and the circumstances surrounding it, and provided a list of reasons why I concluded that the videos were "almost certainly a hoax."
[...]
According to a statement, "MUFON's chief Photo and Video Analyst, Mr. Marc Dantonio, stated 'I firmly believe that the UFO was not real, for many reasons...this video and the other Jerusalem UFO Videos are in my opinion hoaxes." Dantonio cited several reasons for his conclusion, some of them echoing points I made in my analysis published in O'Neill's piece six weeks earlier.

It seems that the skeptical analysis was correct after all: The Jerusalem UFO video was a hoax. This of course puts many UFO believers in an awkward position -- unless they assume that the world's largest UFO-promoting organization is also part of the effort to cover up evidence for UFOs...

Well, the main problem here is that it's difficult to tell which video Radford is talking about. He begins by acknowledging the fact that more than one were released in Youtube, but somehow by the end everybody misses that and the argument concludes with "The Jerusalem video was a hoax"; and that's a shame because people have a very short term memory and they only retain the small sound-bite meme.

I remember reading the article that mentioned his 'analysis'. Regardless of the authenticity of the videos (and I still think the 1rst original one was pretty interesting) I find his argument rather flawed: he came to the conclusion that based on the position of the light the alleged UFO would be rather small:

"If it is an extraterrestrial spacecraft, it is a very small one," Ben told me via email when commenting on the possible origin of the "UFO."
"Judging by the size and distance of the dome it apparently hovers over, it would likely be not much bigger than a limousine. This doesn't mean it's not a spaceship, but it does make you wonder."
OK, so if this is a real UFO and it's being driven by ET, they might just be very small aliens. Why would they need a big spacecraft?

So the video is fake because the UFO is "too small" —that was HIS explanation at the time— should we then conclude that Radford has never heard of the term 'foo fighter'? or the several reports in which military jet fighters were being 'buzzed' by unidentified objects no bigger than 3 feet in diameter?

Now, getting to the topic of the show: there shouldn't be any doubt that the Chupacabras is an example of how in cryptozoology a myth evolves and gets distorted by the culture that adopts it; that's why in the public opinion we ended up with the term being recognized as mangy coyotes nowadays.

But we shouldn't overlook the fact that the myth *did* start with a series of unusual farm animal slaughters. How unusual? well, unusual enough to compel seasoned farmers to report them to the proper authorities. Forget about exsanguinations or whether the animals presented the characteristic 'puncture mark' that was often reported during those days. You leave all that aside, and you are still left with the death of animals who were kept in secured pens.

So what killed the animals then? I can't answer that. But I'm still hesitant to dismiss all those cases as the work of common predators —because if that's the case, then it should worry us that humanity has lived for so long under the delusion that pens are useful too keep animals protected

 

[stphrz]

Regarding photographic and video evidence, I think it's kind of a shame that the default conclusion of a hoax is in fact the correct one nowadays.

There doesn't seem to be any limits to what can be faked anymore. It's getting harder to detect shenanigans all the time because digital manipulation is getting so advanced.

If the content of the Jerusalem video had been captured on 8 mm movie film back in the 70's for example, there would be little choice but to accept it as genuine. But now, forget it.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Regarding photographic and video evidence, I think it's kind of a shame that the default conclusion of a hoax is in fact the correct one nowadays.

There doesn't seem to be any limits to what can be faked anymore. It's getting harder to detect shenanigans all the time because digital manipulation is getting so advanced.

If the content of the Jerusalem video had been captured on 8 mm movie film back in the 70's for example, there would be little choice but to accept it as genuine. But now, forget it.

I have to agree. In fact I'm pretty sure that the day when we'll see the first fake video of a full CGI Bigfoot on Youtube is not so far away :-/

 

[trainedobserver]

Before the days of video manipulation software we had things like the Newhouse film.

 

[softbeard]

This virtually destroys the 1st video, exposing it as a fake.

Geez, you're haven't followed this in much detail, have you Lance. The whole point is that the 'YouTube debunking analysis' that everyone keeps alluding to does not reveal anything conclusive. I've gone over and over on this point explaining that lines of symmetry can be defined in just about any video with symmetrical objects in them. But everyone just swallows the "Confirmed HOAX!" banner headlines without looking at the actual analysis. This 'analysis' is amateurish at best, downright deceitful at worst.
Ok, Lance have it your way. Belief, is belief. Faith is faith. But do not go dredging up material that been discussed ad naseum; the discussion based on it is pointless.

You know, reading some of this thread over, I realize now that I may have inadvertantly crashed a bit of a Ben fan club. Led by no.1 fans like Angelo and Lance. Lance, when you make statements like this;

I believe the type of fallacy you attempt (without supporting facts) to demonstrate above is a "hasty generalization".

you do a dis-service to yourself. The supporting facts are that Ben is using fallacious logic in his arguments. Your statement 'without supporting facts' implies that Ben's logic is, in fact, solid and not fallacious. And, that, Lance, I think, is an uncomfortable argument to make. But, do go on Lance, and expose your position more clearly, so that we may all see the logic.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Put simply, the way that the Jerusalem videos were introduced to the public make them unworthy of consideration.

@red_pill:

You mention one aspect that Radford discussed about the size of the craft (and he didn't say that this was the reason he thought the video was fake). You interestingly didn't quote from the next paragraph in which he listed very concrete reasons that the video may be fake. Having looked at the video, I can agree that the evidence (even after you get past the provenance problems, which should have been a showstopper) against authenticity is strong.



This virtually destroys the 1st video, exposing it as a fake. Must we really consider also the 2nd video or the 4th or the 50th?
For some people it really seems to be a case of:

Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice
Fool me thrice
etc.
etc.
etc.


Lance

Lance,

I assume you're referring to this paragraph:

"For what is described to be (and seems to be) a brightly glowing object, it does not appear to reflect any light off the top of the Dome, which it hovers directly above," he said. "This is especially suspicious since the dome is gold-plated, and should be highly reflective."

Ben also pointed out that even though a handful of videos have surfaced, it's still strange that more haven't come to light. Jerusalem is a religious center flooded with tourists. Although this event apparently happened at 1 a.m., shouldn't there be dozens of videos and eyewitness accounts?

"For these and other reasons, in my opinion, it's almost certainly a hoax," he concluded.

And once again I ask, WHICH video is Ben referring to? I would assume that he's probably referring to either the 3rd or the 4rd, since with the 1st one the viewer is not able to make out almost any detail of the Temple Mount.

And with regards to the famous "parallax" problem —which was not suggested by Ben in the first place, but by the commenter named Hoaxkiller on Youtube— I would suggest that this small video gives a satisfactory answer of why "parallax" is not an issue:

And before you do, know that I've already seen Hoaxkiller's response to that video —he seems to have put a considerable amount of effort in debunking the whole Jerusalem affair.

Do I think the video is legit 100%? No. I only think it was very interesting, and at that time I was waiting to see how the whole episode unfolded, and if maybe someone or some group managed to find and interview more eyewitnesses. Since that hasn't happened, I agree that the arguments in favor have dwindled.

But that doesn't negate the fact that Radford's own assumptions in trying to disprove the video(s) are questionable.

IMO videos are insufficient as proof, but they could sometimes serves as suggestive evidence that could elicit further inquiry.

---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Very reminiscent of the 2004 video of Guadalajara

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Softbeard, I should mention that editing and effects work is what I do for a living at a national level. I have time to participate here in the forums during the time that I am waiting for my effects work to render. I am very familiar with the techniques described in the video I linked and I agree that the evidence shows the use of a tiling effect that is a slam dunk demonstration of manipulation. Your objection, Softbeard, shows a lack of understanding of the basics of this field.


@Redpill,



Hmmm... I am looking at the article which reads:



The words "on one of the videos" is linked to the second Jerusalem video. Hopefully this at least clears up one mystery? By the way, the article was not written by Radford. Surely everyone knows that articles, especially articles for mass consumption like this one, are often scattershot and are never going to go into the maniacal detail that we all love so much.

Lance

Well, if it's referring to the video "apparently shot by American tourists" —the one I like to refer as "the fakiest" — then it's not the 2nd, but the 3rd (adhering numbers in terms of order of appearance on Youtube).

You're right, maybe it's a bit maniacal on my part, but nevertheless I think mass consumption does not justify omitting certain key elements in a given story —after all that clarification wouldn't have implied more than one extra line on the text, and it would have helped readers for further reference

 

[red_pill_junkie]

If you click on the link in the article all will be revealed?

Touché
______

 

[softbeard]

Your objection, Softbeard, shows a lack of understanding of the basics of this field.

Finally. You are planing to show some quantitative analysis of the video. Because up until now, Lance, you have been arguing 'Ben-style'; i.e. faith and hot air. Show the analysis Lance, quantitatively, with statistics. Or at least make a quantitative argument.
I have little patience for people arguing from authority, Lance.
In, detail, Lance, please explain your belief that 'hoaxkiller1''s analysis does indeed show the use of a tiling effect that is a slam dunk demonstration of manipulation.

 

[Kieran]

Interesting show, it a topic that I don't believe in myself, people seeing weird creatures has never interested me. But anyways the guest, was pleasant I liked him overall. I don't think he is debunker, i think if he saw evidence for the existence of something paranormal, he'd change his mind. I can understand his point of view, but he seemed to me to be open to the possibility of paranormal events are happening to people, now someone like Lance, and I like Lance he offers something to the discussion we have here, but its obvious, Lance is very close minded, and will never face the fact UFO'S are being intelligently controlled. and some of these objects may be piloted by visitors from another time or world?

 

[red_pill_junkie]

@redbeard:

The video I linked shows clearly (and explains) all that need be shown. The fact that you don't seem to understand it doesn't change anything.

I use this effect all the time for similar purposes. The telltale signs of its use are obvious and unmistakeable. Your request for statistics, etc. is hilarious.

It's like listening to a Grandma explain how to use a search engine.

"Type in Google Dot Yahoo Dot Search!"

@Kieran

You may be right but what I try to ask for in my posts is evidence. I do approach this stuff thinking that the chances of finding something truly paranormal are very low, almost non-existent.
Do you really think that if I saw evidence for something that was unmistakably paranormal, that I would turn away and deny it?

All I can say is that you don't know me.

Lance

Redbeard? kind of a Freudian slip of the keyboard there

Nevertheless I feel compelled to admit that the video you provided is the best evidence against the authenticity of the 1st Jerusalem UFO clip. Aside from parallax issues and the permitted size of UFOs, noticing the mirror tile in the lower left corner pretty much seals it for me.

But we're still left with how Radford —or rather, the other columnist who quoted him— elaborated his debunking argument. It kinda makes me wonder: does one get points for being right for the wrong reasons?

 

[softbeard]

The video I linked shows clearly (and explains) all that need be shown.

Ok, Lance. Now you have presented your argument and shown what it really consists of.
Saying 'the video I linked shows clearly (and explains) all that need be shown' is not plausible, because, if you view the video all it really says is that some guy thinks some graphics filter was used. Drawing a line through 2 points on a video is not an explanation.
Your contention that it "shows clearly (and explains) ..." is laughable. Anybody considering this as a serious analysis, is, well, not serious.

The telltale signs of its use are obvious and unmistakeable.

What are these telltale signs. Describe the telltale signs and how we can unmistakeably discern the presence of such manipulation. Better yet and far more useful, why not write a computer routine that can look for these signs. That might save a lot of arguing about the authenticity of these types of videos in the future. I promise I won't pirate such a program but buy a legit license from you.

Lance, you have offered nothing in your analysis except faith-based dogma and appeals to authority. Crude attempts at personal attacks and self-aggrandization also thrown in for good measure. You base your contentions solely on your faith in your abilities to magically detect signs of use of a CG effects-routine, yet are unable to exactly state how you come to concluding its application. This makes your analysis very suspect, and basically useless.

 

[softbeard]

As I have explained, the repeated pixels are an exact reversed copy of the original. When the video gets turned on the Z axis, the linked video shows clearly that the original edges of the video (right where the mirror image is abutted) ALSO turn on the Z.

Thank you Lance, now we are getting somewhere.
So, I gather, your contention is that the lines displayed in the 'hoaxkiller1' video are x-axis y-axis lines of symmetry, plus there is a ~2-3 deg. rotation (ccw) around the z-axis accounting for why these symmetry lines are not square with standard x & y axis. Am I correct in this?

 

[softbeard]

The lines created by the gentleman in the video were most likely approximate and for demonstration. Without having the original video, it isn't that easy to precisely recreate the edges because of the general darkness and poor quality of the video. I would have just roughed them in.

From your non-commital reply I gather you agree with my description. I could go into details, based on geometry, why I don't find such a description correct, but leave this aside for a moment.
What I do find a lot more interesting is this;

 

[softbeard]

If you have legitimate question about my explanation, I would like to hear it.
As you see, I tried to be as clear and precise as possible.
I am not going to speak about the lines in the video because they are not part of the evidence, they are just demonstrative---I didn't even look at them.

Oh and I am not going to get into another aspect of another video. If the 1st one is a fake, there is zero need to agonize over a latter one.

Lance

I find myself underwhelemed by the clarity and precision in your explanations.
Try and understand, Lance, I am not asking you for further analysis and explanations. I know you hold your opinions in high regard. I, for reasons you have shown by your replies, do not.
I find the diatribe you offer pointless and worthless.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Okay. That discussion was fun. Now lets bring it back to talking about the Ben Radford episode since this thread has gone to discussing the Jerusalem UFO.
And to answer softbeard - I am most defiantly a fan of Radford's and as I have stated in other posts, I am completely biased.