Do cats and babies not understand our adult impossibilities and can will the impossible? See video.

[papageorge1]

How many times on another forum have I heard stories of a cat being in a place they shouldn't logically have been able to get to. They are almost cliche stories there.

Maybe cats and babies don't believe in our impossibilities??? And they bend reality with enough desire to get some place?

 

 

 

[+OverSword]

That was awesome!! 

[+Desertrat56]

I remember when I found my 20 month old sitting on top of the stand up freezer (opens like a refrigerator, not a chest) with her back to the edge.   The little chair she had for her tiny table was pulled up to the sink and I had seen her standing on that chair at the sink before.   The countertop was at her shoulder height.   I figured she must have had some amzing upper body strength.  Because she pulled herself up into the sink, climbed to the counter beside the freezer which also was shoulder height for her and then pulled her self on top of the freezer.  There was nothing for her to grab to pull herself up, the freezer had rounded courners on top.   When I aske how she got up there she said "I flewed up".   The reason she was there was because that is where I hid the gum.   

As for that video, the first time there seemed to be some kind of hinky pixilating that wasn't there the second time.

[acute]

I'd like to see more of those clips.

[+Desertrat56]

I have a 55 pound part husky dog that can squeeze through the cat door.   She looks like she is too big but she does it.

[jethrofloyd]

Looks like a optical ilusion to me.

[+Desertrat56]

3 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

Looks like a optical ilusion to me.

It did to me too.

[papageorge1]

Papameter Reading 

82% Paranormal.   15% Video Editing Hoax.    3% Natural/Illusion 

 

Factors: any normal adult on the scene would have gone out of their way to investigate normal and if discovered a possibility this would not have made it to YouTube

Editing would be a feat the way the toddler twists so right.

Edited November 12, 2022 by papageorge1

[Hankenhunter]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Papameter Reading 

82% Paranormal.   15% Video Editing Hoax.    3% Natural/Illusion 

 

Factors: any normal adult on the scene would have gone out of their way to investigate normal and if discovered a possibility this would not have made it to YouTube

Editing would be a feat the way the toddler twists so right.

I agree Papa, the baby should have had to turn right sideways to squeeze through. I watched my son try the very same thing many times with his crib, and stair guard with no success. Cool video. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Editing would be a feat the way the toddler twists so right.

I don't think so, it's a short video and it looks to me that if only one or two of the slats weren't actually there the toddler could have walked right through it.  I don't think it's that hard to superimpose an extra slat there and then just obscure it where the baby is editing-wise, add shadowing, etc. Pausing it, I'm skeptical about this hand placement too:

As the toddler goes through it appears they put their left hand two slats to the left of the gap they appear to be going through for stability.  That could be attributed to just random/chaotic toddler behavior but it's also conveniently where I'd expect them to put it if two of the slats were not there and it was open instead. It is a freaky looking video though.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't think so, it's a short video and it looks to me that if only one or two of the slats weren't actually there the toddler could have walked right through it.  I don't think it's that hard to superimpose an extra slat there and then just obscure it where the baby is editing-wise, add shadowing, etc. Pausing it, I'm skeptical about this hand placement too:

As the toddler goes through it appears they put their left hand two slats to the left of the gap they appear to be going through for stability.  That could be attributed to just random/chaotic toddler behavior but it's also conveniently where I'd expect them to put it if two of the slats were not there and it was open instead. It is a freaky looking video though.

So, you are going with '15% Video Editing Hoax' on the Papameter. Possible for a morally reprehensible act of deceiving the public for almost no advantage to anyone. You are describing quite a creative effort mechanically and digitally.

Edited November 12, 2022 by papageorge1

[Dejarma]

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Maybe cats and babies don't believe in our impossibilities??? And they bend reality with enough desire to get some place?

fantasy - why not? you enjoy it...have fun

[papageorge1]

10 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

fantasy - why not? you enjoy it...have fun

I'm only interested in reality here, That's more interesting than fantasy even to me!

Edited November 12, 2022 by papageorge1

[Rlyeh]

11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Maybe cats and babies don't believe in our impossibilities???

Didn't stop the AIDS denialists from dying from AIDS

[+Liquid Gardens]

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Possible for a morally reprehensible act of deceiving the public for almost no advantage to anyone.

What a crazy statement from someone who spends so much time on the internet, like you are oblivious to the great number of videos put together just for fun, you're just making up this weird standard of 'no advantage to anyone'.  Ever hear of the numerous Tik-Tok challenges that people do and post?  What 'advantage' is that to anyone?  I don't think it's 'morally reprehensible' to fake a video like this or even for someone to dress up as Sasquatch and let their friends take fuzzy videos of them stomping around the forest, especially as an adult you have to take responsibility for your own gullibility too.

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You are describing quite a creative effort mechanically and digitally.

I don't know why you are mentioning 'mechanically', the only evidence at hand is digital.  It is creative if it's a fake, I'm just saying it doesn't look like it'd necessarily be that difficult to do although it'd be a little tedious, it would look to involve just putting in a slat or two that wasn't really there, and it's a whopping 5 seconds of video to edit. I wonder too if there's something going on with the perspective, there does seem to be maybe some kind of optical illusion going on too.  If you look at the slow motion part the video looks off in parts, it looks to me like if they had just edited in the first slat to the left of the toddler that they move in front of, it would be consistent with how they would move and it would look if that slat wasn't actually there. 

The other thing that looked a little strange, but maybe it's just the effect of watching it in slow motion, is if you watch the movement of their left hand around the 14 second mark.  The toddler grabs one of the slats as they step over the bottom of the gate and you can see the tips of their fingers around the back of that slat, but then almost instantaneously the hand shows behind the toddler as it extends its arm as it finishes walking through.  Maybe they moved their arm that fast or again it's just an effect from watching it in slo-mo but it just adds to the vague 'off'-ness of it, it just doesn't seem to take enough time for the hand to go from this:

to:

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What a crazy statement from someone who spends so much time on the internet, like you are oblivious to the great number of videos put together just for fun, you're just making up this weird standard of 'no advantage to anyone'.  Ever hear of the numerous Tik-Tok challenges that people do and post?  What 'advantage' is that to anyone?  I don't think it's 'morally reprehensible' to fake a video like this or even for someone to dress up as Sasquatch and let their friends take fuzzy videos of them stomping around the forest, especially as an adult you have to take responsibility for your own gullibility too.

I don't know why you are mentioning 'mechanically', the only evidence at hand is digital.  It is creative if it's a fake, I'm just saying it doesn't look like it'd necessarily be that difficult to do although it'd be a little tedious, it would look to involve just putting in a slat or two that wasn't really there, and it's a whopping 5 seconds of video to edit. I wonder too if there's something going on with the perspective, there does seem to be maybe some kind of optical illusion going on too.  If you look at the slow motion part the video looks off in parts, it looks to me like if they had just edited in the first slat to the left of the toddler that they move in front of, it would be consistent with how they would move and it would look if that slat wasn't actually there. 

The other thing that looked a little strange, but maybe it's just the effect of watching it in slow motion, is if you watch the movement of their left hand around the 14 second mark.  The toddler grabs one of the slats as they step over the bottom of the gate and you can see the tips of their fingers around the back of that slat, but then almost instantaneously the hand shows behind the toddler as it extends its arm as it finishes walking through.  Maybe they moved their arm that fast or again it's just an effect from watching it in slo-mo but it just adds to the vague 'off'-ness of it, it just doesn't seem to take enough time for the hand to go from this:

to:

Once again it is an all things considered personal judgment. Even if real there would have to be some 'off' looking stuff to our eyes. No way would it would look totally correct to us. I've watched it many times already.

I went '15% Video Editing Hoax'. What percentage would you go?

I suppose this is not the time to yet bring up the fact that physicists tell us solids are almost all empty space and quantum entanglement. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I went '15% Video Editing Hoax'. What percentage would you go?

I suppose this is not the time to yet bring up the fact that physicists tell us solids are almost all empty space and quantum entanglement. 

I’d go very high 99+% as a video editing hoax right now, but that is indeed based on an unanswered question that is relevant to your last sentence.  You suppose wrong, this is exactly the time to bring up your understanding of everything ‘quantum’, and the question that is very germane to my video editing estimation:  what physicists say the odds are of a toddler over several seconds being able to ‘phase through’ a solid object?  That’s the crucial question, at the level of ‘physics’ there are many things that are merely possible but incredibly unlikely.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I’d go very high 99+% as a video editing hoax right now, but that is indeed based on an unanswered question that is relevant to your last sentence.  You suppose wrong, this is exactly the time to bring up your understanding of everything ‘quantum’, and the question that is very germane to my video editing estimation:  what physicists say the odds are of a toddler over several seconds being able to ‘phase through’ a solid object?  That’s the crucial question, at the level of ‘physics’ there are many things that are merely possible but incredibly unlikely.

Ok, you gave my wild speculation at the end too much importance. Wild speculation was all it was.

In my worldview ghosts happen, Mandela Effects happen, objects passing through each other happen and a dozen other things that are far beyond current science. This video event is not the great stretch for me that it would be for you. I've been into this kind of stuff for decades and am convinced all kinds of crazy things do indeed sometimes happen. For me observation can precede understanding.

So, it's my 15% versus your 99+% because we come from different worldviews.

[Alchopwn]

The second bar on the right is bent back, but is filmed from an angle that makes it look like it is still in place. 

[Ell]

I wonder whether the first bar on the right might be an elastic band.

[+Liquid Gardens]

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I've been into this kind of stuff for decades and am convinced all kinds of crazy things do indeed sometimes happen. For me observation can precede understanding.

So, it's my 15% versus your 99+% because we come from different worldviews.

No, your worldview is based on 'what you are convinced of' instead of what backs up that conviction like evidence.  My 99% comes from evidence:  video editing is common place, hoaxes are common place, perceptual illusions are not rare, etc, and the non-specific 'crazy' things you are suggesting have historically often been offered as explanations/occurrences and not once been shown to be the case.  The difference between 'my alarm didn't go off because I think I forgot to set it last night' and 'my alarm didn't go off because a ghost turned it off while I was sleeping' is more than just 'worldview', there's no reason to invoke 'crazy' things when we have mundane explanations with evidence to support them.

[papageorge1]

35 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No, your worldview is based on 'what you are convinced of' instead of what backs up that conviction like evidence.  My 99% comes from evidence:  video editing is common place, hoaxes are common place, perceptual illusions are not rare, etc, and the non-specific 'crazy' things you are suggesting have historically often been offered as explanations/occurrences and not once been shown to be the case.  The difference between 'my alarm didn't go off because I think I forgot to set it last night' and 'my alarm didn't go off because a ghost turned it off while I was sleeping' is more than just 'worldview', there's no reason to invoke 'crazy' things when we have mundane explanations with evidence to support them.

My worldview was formed by evidence and my reasoning. Given the mountain of claims considered for quantity, quality and consistency I believe beyond reasonable doubt that we live in a universe where this multitude of crazy things are possible. If this video was the first claim I ever heard, I might be inclined to go 99% hoax. 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

31 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My worldview was formed by evidence and my reasoning. Given the mountain of claims considered for quantity, quality and consistency I believe beyond reasonable doubt that we live in a universe where this multitude of crazy things are possible. If this video was the first claim I ever heard, I might be inclined to go 99% hoax. 

Yes, but the difference is the evidence I've offered are facts and don't depend on what I believe.  "Video editing is common place, hoaxes are common place, perceptual illusions are not rare" are not based on what I believe, they are facts, have a look for yourself if you don't believe me.  You don't have comparable evidence, you have 'it looks like this toddler phased through matter', but my same evidence potentially explains why it looks that way also if true.  

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yes, but the difference is the evidence I've offered are facts and don't depend on what I believe.  "Video editing is common place, hoaxes are common place, perceptual illusions are not rare" are not based on what I believe, they are facts, have a look for yourself if you don't believe me.  You don't have comparable evidence, you have 'it looks like this toddler phased through matter', but my same evidence potentially explains why it looks that way also if true.  

Again, we are analyzing the same video through different worldviews. The 'crazy' happens and with the internet it is captured and shared more is my worldview. Also, I certainly believe there are tricksters/hoaxers out there, but I believe the vast majority of people are simply being honest with their experiences. So, I do give hoax some weight. I'm estimating things 'all things considered' under my worldview.

I understand your argument and we just weigh things differently because we have different worldviews on the existence of the 'crazy'. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I understand your argument and we just weigh things differently because we have different worldviews on the existence of the 'crazy'. 

Okay, I would just disagree with the word 'just'.  Remove the idea of 'worldviews', the facts/evidence I mentioned are objective and do not depend on my believing them or not, and video editing alone potentially fully explains your video.  What facts or evidence do you then have for your 'crazy' position that doesn't depend on your belief or worldview?  With reference to this video what you've offered is, as you clarified, 'wild speculation' that I really wasn't supposed to take seriously I guess, and thus isn't comparable to the evidence I mentioned.  So it's not 'just' a difference in your and my worldviews, there appear to be differences in the objective evidence for our respective positions.