A video barely constitutes evidence, much less proof
Tram law writes:
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.
If you are paraphrasing Arthur Conan Doyle, which it certainly sounds like you are, you've left out a very important point. The actual quote is "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
There is nothing you cannot fake in a video, and with the right tools and know how, such a forgery would prove indistinguishable from a legitimate video. Therefore video evidence is about as reliable as a personal anecdote these days.
Take this brilliant video...
Not real. Pretty cool, but not real.
Video evidence is becoming less accepted even in court these days given the low expense of cameras and editing software. The main source of admissible video evidence in courtrooms today come from security cameras with timestamps and handling procedures.
The only real form of evidence you could present for... for whatever it is that you mean by "paranormal"... would be something tangible that could be studied - like the ectoplasm from Ghostbusters ("He slimed me"). And whatever astonishing results came from the study of said tangible evidence would need to be reproducible by entirely different teams of scientists. Scientific evidence must undergo rigorous scrutiny before it is accepted as legitimate, a daunting task that no video alone will ever live up to.
™ Version 4.2
