The Movie Paranormal Activity

I just saw this movie for the first time. For those who have seen the movie, and based on the hypothetical if it's real, that is if actual footage like this was actually found, would this constitute real and hard evidence of the paranormal? Or would this all be chalked up to camera glitches because it looks fake?You see, while I am not a believer in the existence of the paranormal, I do believe that "whatever remains after sifting through all the evidence, however improbable, must be the truth". That is to say, at least for me, finding footage like this would go a ways to helping prove the existence of the Paranormal. But even with this, I still prefer normal explanations first and above all.But I also believe that denial is a powerful tool. Some people could not believe that their hair was on fire when it was on fire if they didn't want to, and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.I also believe in putting all claims through the same analytical process. Just because something looks like a fake doesn't mean that it is a fake. It's far too easy to say that without true objectivity. This is what I mean, if somebody claims they did it and don't have a fake suit to wear, then it;s just a claim. Because the general rule is that an argument is an argument until there is proof to back it up, and the same standards must be equally applied across the board.But the problem I see is that some people will automatically assume that if one's arguing that the claim is that it must be a fake to be false is arguing for the opposite claim (it must be real), but that simply is not true, and is actually arguing for a false dichotomy. For the general rule in discussion is if someone makes a positive claim then they must back it up, and saying it must be a fake is a positive claim. And arguing against it should in no way be taken for an argument that the footage or evidence must be real. It's just an examination of that individual claim.So, so how does one know the difference between denial and actual skepticism?And would footage like that actually be objectively considered to be evidence of real paranormal activity?For those who haven't seen the move, here's the wiki on it:Paranormal Activity - Wikipedia

1
It would look fake to some people from a sense of denial. Some people do not want to believe even in the possibility that the supernatural could exist under any circumstances, and so would more than likely just dismiss it out of hand without being objective at all. One of my favorite quotes from the movie "The Mist" goes like this: [quote] Leave it alone, David. You can't convince some people there's a fire even when their hair is burning. Denial is a powerful thing. [quote] 2No, I'm entirely sure how to make it more clear to you. Sorry. but basically I am asking how much evidence would it take to convince some people. If a person didn't want to believe in the existences of dogs, they'd still deny them if a dog bit them and put them in the hospital for a day or two.3.It would be unreasonable because it's an assumption first, and not truly objective, and completely dismissive of the footage. In science you're supposed to examine the evidence first without a tailored conclusion before hand and be objective. When you come to the conclusion first and tailor all evidence to support that conclusion, that is not being objective, is it?

double postEdited by Tram law, : double post

quote:

---

And you're aware that the end of "The Mist" is that it turns out there never were any monsters, just a bunch of drug-induced hallucinations?
[

---

I have read the novella a few times and seen the movie a couple of times and i have never seen that in print nor was it even hinted at in the movie. So I call shenanigans. And the quote still applies.

quote:

---

No, in science you're supposed to explain the data at hand with the simplest explanation, the one that proposes the least untestable entities. It's called "Occam's Razor",

---

Actually Occams' Razor states that one should not multiply entities unnecessarily, which is not the same thing as the kiss (keep it simple stupid0. It is different than keeping it simple, and that idea of keeping simple actually comes from Darwin and applies to evolution.And no, science does not state you must keep it simple for it to be correct. Some scientists believe that but since science does not work by consensus, or at least so I'm told, science can not make that kind of a statement.

quote:

---

I don't know why you think anything is being pre-judged, here.

---

Saying something is going to be a hoax because history has shown everything else is a hoax is a pre-judgement.If the camera footage found is a hoax, then when taken to a camera expert, or even several just to be sure, they should be able to use their equipment and break it down into the video's components and be able to pinpoint where the hoax is and identify the hoax, correct?But here's where the pre-judging comes in.Since it must be a hoax it shouldn't even be taken in to a camera expert for analyzation since it's going to be a hoax anyway.Edited by Tram law, : added a statement

quote:

---

That's not pre-judgement at all, because their judgement is based on the evidence of the video, which looks fake.

---

Except that just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean it is.

quote:

---

This makes absolutely no sense as a statement in English. Can you elaborate?

---

Sigh.Probably not enough for you. I'm sorry.

quote:

---

Eh, maybe that's the alternate ending, then. I've not actually read or seen it, I just recall from the Wikipedia entry.

---

Here's the wikipedia articles:Mist (disambiguation) - WikipediaThe Mist (film) - WikipediaI see nothing about that conclusion. neither article mentions an alternate ending.Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Or, I'll ask it another way. You show someone a video of the supernatural, but it looks fake. What other evidence would be necessary to conclude the video isn't fake? That's the answer to your original question.

---

For me, before coming to a conclusion, I'd take it to an expert, or several, and get it analyzed first before coming to a conclusion. If they found any kind of glitches that could be an indication that it's a fake, then it's a fake. If they can't find anything that could be an indication of fakery, then it's not a fake. Or if there is no consensus then I'd simply call it inconclusive either way.

quote:

---

You're inadvertently pigeonholing people in to a specific conclusion by not offering much of an alternative.

---

So what would be the alternative?A swirling mass of unidentified energy that looks like it could be a person who had formerly lived?If an unknown invisible force grabbed you by the feet and pulled you out of bed, and down a flight of stairs, and it wasn't a hallucination of some sort, and it can't be a hallucination because it was caught on tape and you have the injuries to prove it, what is the alternate answer?

quote:

---

Is this an explanation, no. But is a more plausible theory than ghost.

---

Except that it breaks Occam's Razor because these questions must be asked:Why would she use such a suit?What is the motivation for killing the boyfriend? Where is the girl now? Where is the suit?How would this woman get a hold of such a s suit since these things are generally restricted by the military and are very expensive, costing several million dollars I believe?Does the woman have any contact with the proper military authorities that would give her the suit? And why would the military authorities authorize the use of this suit? Where would the paperwork be for the authorization and the operation of the suit?Why target this couple? What have they done to deserve such attention?And why would she have this suit since childhood? She stated that she was experiencing this kind of thing since childhood. Children are generally not knowledgeable about this kind of thing and presumably, assuming the woman is in her twenties to thirties, she was a child long before the suit actually existed and was just a suggestion in a science fiction book.How would she even get the idea for using such a suit to terrorize her boyfriend in the first place?How would the suit allow her to have a demonic visage caught on tape? These kinds of suits don't allow for that kind of thing, at least as far as I know.And if it was somebody wearing the suit, because she was often shown in bed with her boyfriend, then that means there was a third person inside the house turning the TV and lights on and off. Not to mention moving the sheets. So that if such a suit was being used then that would mean that she had a partner working with her to terrorize the boyfriend.Which of course means there must be a motivation for terrorizing the boyfriend.And wouldn't the military be after he to get such an expensive piece of equipment back?So while it might be more plausible, it doesn't really seem right because it raises a lot of questions to be asked.

quote:

---

The problems you have with that answer are due to you taking it out of context an applying it to another question you have??

---

People have been doing the same thing to me.

quote:

---

Not the context you wrote it, but doesn't that apply to ghosts, UFOs and the like as a more reasonable explanation?

---

Other than to say it should depend on the circumstances, I don't have any other answers for you. Sorry.

Well, I'm going to sum this thread up as; "there is no amount of photographic or video evidence that skeptics will accept because each and every single one of them absolutely has to be a hoax because many of them are."Thank you for your responses gentlemen.

I'd suspect law of averages, but that's just an instinctual response.But I'm pretty much done with this.

I have no answer that'll satisfy you or that you'll accept in any way shape or form.And I'm done with this subject.

My friend can't imagine the evidence for evolution either, so according to him there can't be any evolution.And according to him, he and only he has all the answers to evolution, and those answers are it can't be true under any circumstances because he can't understand or imagine it.So, wouldn't this be very poor reasoning? And wouldn't this be denial?

Yes, ghosts and evolution are not the same, but the attitude is.A tennis shoe that has shoe laces while another has Velcro are still tennis shoes.