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

[papageorge1]

25 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

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.

This is judging a human involved situation. My worldview and my judgment of human nature absolutely should play a part in my best estimate/judgment. Now your certainty of fraud must be driven by YOUR worldview. 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

This is judging a human involved situation.

So, that doesn't mean there is no objective evidence relating to it.

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My worldview and my judgment of human nature absolutely should play a part in my best estimate/judgment.

No one said otherwise, the only relevant question to this conversation though is how valid your judgment is.  I'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter, you have your judgment and I have mine. Fine, let's set those aside -- what else you got?  I've got evidence and facts that would explain the video, a mountain of evidence actually indicating how many times video editing has been done and how, how many hoaxes have occurred - that's not my estimate or judgment, that is fact, it doesn't depend on me at all.  You don't have anything like that, you don't seem to have anything but your judgment. That's fine but the existence of facts on my side and not much of the same on yours means that the differences between us are not 'just' worldviews, if you separate our opinions from the evaluation entirely the cases and evidence base themselves are not equal.

[Ell]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

If this video was the first claim I ever heard, I might be inclined to go 99% hoax. 

One has to consider every claim on its own merit. Accordingly, your conclusion is that it is a hoax.

[papageorge1]

16 minutes ago, Ell said:

One has to consider every claim on its own merit. Accordingly, your conclusion is that it is a hoax.

Disagree. 'All things considered" analyses are done from a worldview of the universe and also human nature. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I've got evidence and facts that would explain the video, a mountain of evidence actually indicating how many times video editing has been done and how, how many hoaxes have occurred - that's not my estimate or judgment, that is fact, it doesn't depend on me at all. 

Really? Over the decades I would say 99% of these are never proven hoax or real (such as this one). I think hoaxes are only a small minority of these. And probably even more times I've heard 'no evidence of editing'.

Edited November 13, 2022 by papageorge1

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Really? Over the decades I would say 99% of these are never proven hoax or real (such as this one). I think hoaxes are only a small minority of these. And probably even more times I've heard 'no evidence of editing'.

You don't have to prove a hoax to be false, you have to prove it to be true. Otherwise, you're only believing it to be true and facts do not require belief, being self-evident.

[papageorge1]

11 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You don't have to prove a hoax to be false, you have to prove it to be true. Otherwise, you're only believing it to be true and facts do not require belief, being self-evident.

I am not claiming proof, just estimating likelihood all things considered.

[+Hammerclaw]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am not claiming proof, just estimating likelihood all things considered.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lacking concrete evidence leaves two choices, believe or not believe. Obviously, you've chosen to believe, because you feel it "likely".

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Really? Over the decades I would say 99% of these are never proven hoax or real (such as this one). I think hoaxes are only a small minority of these. And probably even more times I've heard 'no evidence of editing'.

You'll forgive if I don't trust whomever you hear 'no evidence of editing' from, from what you've posted you seem to spend much more time on believer websites than you do skeptical ones.  Regardless, we're still out of balance. Fine, we'll say we have a bunch of unproven cases.  So our complete set of all 'weird videos' is made up of a portion that have never been proven or are unknown plus the portion that were proven to be hoaxes/optical illusions.  What we don't have is any portion of 'weird videos' where it's been proven to be something truly unknown/beyond science.  I'm offering an explanation that has been evidenced by other proven cases, you aren't and can't because that evidence doesn't exist, thus your position doesn't seem to have as much to support it .  Again this is all outside of our subjective worldviews, it's just the factual state of the overall evidence right now. 

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lacking concrete evidence leaves two choices, believe or not believe. Obviously, you've chosen to believe, because you feel it "likely".

Wrong. The Papameter reading reveals I don't know. There's 'believe', 'not believe' but also 'unsure'.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

  What we don't have is any portion of 'weird videos' where it's been proven to be something truly unknown/beyond science.  

It's impossible to prove the paranormal from a video especially home videos. The most we can say is 'Unexplained Mystery'. And that I've seen many times.

[stereologist]

On 11/11/2022 at 8:49 PM, 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.

New and improved paapmeter

0% paranormal 100% normal baby behavior

100% original papameter is a a failure

[stereologist]

8 hours 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. 

 

Your worldview is never based on reasoning or evidence. It is based on noting of value, just story telling by frauds.

The quantity, quality and consistency of your posts is that you are unable to reason, unable to understand science, and reject evidence.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Wrong. The Papameter reading reveals I don't know. There's 'believe', 'not believe' but also 'unsure'.

The papameter reveals your lack of understanding of basic principles such as probabilities. The level needed for you to understand is 4th grade math, but that is far far beyond you.

Your frivolous claims of being unsure are laughable at best.

The fact is that your papameter has been broken from day 1 and will never ever work.

This goofy video tells us nothing except scam which you fell for. Even before the baby gets close to the crib slats we see that the slate are not there. You'd have to be a pumpkinhead to not notice that the slate are not there.

[stereologist]

So here is what is happening.

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/discover/what-is-chroma-key.html#:~:text=Achieving that contrast is the reason for the,so long as they aren’t wearing green clothes.

Some cameras use a key color to fill in or not fill in video content. Green is often used but is not essential to the process.

When the baby approaches the crib, the automatic systems in the camera adjust and affect the input making the "green screen color" used in this hoax video change in portions of the image. The makes the background "leak" through and the slat is no longer forced into the image, i.e. we see the background.

Of course, the low quality original papameter falls for this hoax making a fool of itself once again.

[+joc]

I use to climb way up to the top cabinets as a toddler.  I had a little stool that said on it:  This little stool of mine, I use it all the time, to reach the things I couldn't and lots of things I shouldn't.  

My dog is an escape artist...it is amazing what animals and babies....and adults...can do.  There isn't anything supernatural about it.

But yeah...that's a stupid video and fake.   

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

So here is what is happening.

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/discover/what-is-chroma-key.html#:~:text=Achieving that contrast is the reason for the,so long as they aren’t wearing green clothes.

Some cameras use a key color to fill in or not fill in video content. Green is often used but is not essential to the process.

When the baby approaches the crib, the automatic systems in the camera adjust and affect the input making the "green screen color" used in this hoax video change in portions of the image. The makes the background "leak" through and the slat is no longer forced into the image, i.e. we see the background.

Of course, the low quality original papameter falls for this hoax making a fool of itself once again.

But Stereo, bow did the toddlers too large head get between the slats?

[the13bats]

On 11/11/2022 at 8:49 PM, 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.

Are you really wanting me to believe you are really that utterly credulous,  naive and gullible?

Yourube is chocked full of stupid clickbait hoax videos like this one where these "normal adults" as you called them do not investagate crap they just jump to post their BS hoax video.

Damn PG you sure did slip to the bottom of the barrel of having any credibility or integrity left with this one.

[the13bats]

Its a purpose made centered video of a random event. ( stagged )  if you watch the brat imnsho that bar isnt there, see PG the flaw in your theory if the baby had magical powers then no bar would have been in its way but some are, photoshop.

Lastly my challenge to the hoxer parents, post more videos of the brat doing it again.

Edited November 14, 2022 by the13bats

[openozy]

We all know humans can't walk through cages,whatever people think it was pretty well executed.

Edited November 14, 2022 by openozy

[SecretSanta]

If you had taken the time to do some research and not blindly believe you would have discovered that the video (which is conveniently cropped in the video you posted) was made by Action Movie Kids. There’s an entire YouTube channel dedicated to cgi videos of kids. 
 

https://www.youtube.com/c/theActionMovieKid

[SecretSanta]

@papageorge1

what does that meter say now? 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, SecretSanta said:

If you had taken the time to do some research and not blindly believe you would have discovered that the video (which is conveniently cropped in the video you posted) was made by Action Movie Kids. There’s an entire YouTube channel dedicated to cgi videos of kids. 

Very good. Despite your accusation of laziness, I actually did take the time to do research first and wasn't able to find anything. You must have research techniques I don't know about. Would you care to share?

Not a total shock as the meter did read '15% Video Editing Hoax'. But I will use any expanded research techniques I learn in the future.

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by papageorge1

[SecretSanta]

15 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Very good. Despite your accusation of laziness, I actually did take the time to do research first and wasn't able to find anything. You must have research techniques I don't know about. Would you care to share?

Not a total shock as the meter did read '15% Video Editing Hoax'. But I will use any expanded research techniques I learn in the future.

 

Pretty sure I just used “baby walks through gate” in the search bar on YouTube. 
 

So the updated Papameter should now be 100% video editing (not a hoax because the original person who made it never claimed it to be paranormal).

[papageorge1]

6 minutes ago, SecretSanta said:

Pretty sure I just used “baby walks through gate” in the search bar on YouTube. 
 

So the updated Papameter should now be 100% video editing (not a hoax because the original person who made it never claimed it to be paranormal).

Ok that was an easy search.

And the word 'hoax' is correct because the presenter in the video OP I gave in the OP presented this as real with his comments (which I made the effort to translate) and apparently removed the 'Action Movie Kid' title.