Shubee wrote:

whippa wrote:And again, there's significant evidence that this is not what happened.

Actually, there is hard physical evidence that it did happen. See The Fossil Record.

I have no wish to quibble again with your sources Shubee but this one seems particularly partisan, Sean D. Pitman M.D. Why an M.D. where are your bona-fide Natural Scientists?
You do have proper Natural Scientists that support you?

After a long page of stuff that looked like stock pictures and pretty graphs we arrive at:

Conclusion

So, where does the evidence put us? What position seems most reasonable? What theory answers the most questions? Do fossils and the geologic column that contains them represent millions of years of slow sedimentation or do they reveal a time of huge catastrophe and rapid deposition, death, and burial on a global scale?
(Back to Top)

Come back next week for the next gripping instalment of Shubee’s “Quasi Quantum Creation Theory”

Fox89 wrote:So what if "I exist" is an unfalsifiable claim?

Because it shows that the requirement for falsifiability isn't scientific. There are instances where "falsifiability" is a weasel's excuse meant to circumvent perfectly logical arguments.

Shubee wrote:

whippa wrote:And again, there's significant evidence that this is not what happened.

Actually, there is hard physical evidence that it did happen. See The Fossil Record.

Oh great a load of woo. Shubee at least have something that is credible please.

Creotard wrote:Of course, this is a very general pattern and does not explain why certain creatures that lived on the bottoms of oceans, like trilobites, make their first appearance in the Cambrian (505-540 Ma) while other creatures that live on ocean bottoms, like crabs and lobsters, don't appear until the beginning of the Cretaceous (65-145 Ma).83 Why would creatures that would seem to share the same general environment while alive be so widely separated in the fossil record if they did indeed live at the same time and in pretty much the same location? If the geologic column truly represents a series of closely spaced catastrophic burial events instead of long ages of time, how can this feature be explained? Certainly this is a difficult and rather mysterious problem for those, like myself, who might think to question the long age notion of the fossil record.

OKKKKK

Seriously wtf?

So crabs and lobsters apparently evolved around the same time as trilobites?

Crabs from the Jurassic

Wiki wrote:The infraorder Brachyura contains about 93 families[4], as many as the remainder of the Decapoda.[5] The evolution of crabs is characterised by an increasing robustness of the body, and a reduction in the abdomen. Although other groups have also undergone similar processes of carcinisation, it is most advanced in crabs. The telson is no longer functional in crabs, and the uropods are absent, having probably evolved into small devices for holding the reduced abdomen tight against the sternum.[6]


A porcelain crab nestled in its sea pen host both waiting to capture floating food items at night. Found on the North coast of Timor-Leste.In most decapodes, the gonopores (sexual openings) are found on the legs. However, since crabs use the first two pairs of pleopods (abdominal appendages) for sperm transfer, this arrangement has changed. As the male abdomen evolved into a narrower shape, the gonopores have moved towards the midline, away from the legs, and onto the sternum.[7] A similar change occurred, independently, with the female gonopores. The movement of the female gonopore to the sternum defines the clade Eubrachyura, and the later change in the position of the male gonopore defines the Thoracotremata. It is still a subject of debate whether those crabs where the female, but not male, gonopores are situated on the sternum form a monophyletic group.[5]

The earliest unambiguous crab fossils date from the Jurassic, although the Carboniferous Imocaris, known only from its carapace is thought to be a primitive crab.[8] The radiation of crabs in the Cretaceous and afterwards may be linked either to the break-up of Gondwana or to the concurrent radiation of bony fish, the main predators of crabs.[9]

About 850 species[10] of crab are freshwater or (semi-)terrestrial species; they are found throughout the world's tropical and semi-tropical regions. They were previously thought to be a closely related group, but are now believed to represent at least two distinct lineages, one in the Old World and one in the New World.[11]

Trilobites

wiki wrote:The earliest trilobite known from the fossil record is the genus Fallotaspis within Order Redlichiida, dated to some 540 million years ago.[25] Other early genera include Profalloptaspis and Eofallotaspis, all appearing about the same time.

So its quite easy how to explain how crabs and trilobites are in different areas of time, they evolved in different times, so we expect to see them at different times. As for the catastrophe thing, someone that is advocating that is pretty crazy........

Oh Shubee, here are some real scientific references. From an archaeologist. Who is familiar with stratigraphy and the fossil record.

Argue, D., Donlon, D., Groves, C., Wright, R., 2006, Homo floresiensis: Microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo? Journal of Human Evolution; Volume 51, Issue 4, 360-374

Bridgland, D.R., Preece, R.C., Roe, H.M., Tipping, R.M., Coope, G.R., Field, M.H., Robinson, J.E., Schreve, D.C. & Crowe, K., 2001, Middle Pleistocene interglacial deposits at Barling, Essex, England: evidence for a longer chronology for the Thames terrace sequence, Journal of Quaternary Science 16(8) 813–840

Brown, P.; Sutikna, T., Morwood, M. J., Soejono, R. P., Jatmiko, Wayhu Saptomo, E. & Rokus Awe Due (2004). "A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia.". Nature 431

Brumm, Aziz, van den Bergh, Morwood, Moore, Kurniawan, Hobbs, Fullagar, 2006, Early stone technology on Flores and its implications for Homo floresiensis.: Nature; 441(7093):624-8.

Cobb, S., 2008, The facial skeleton of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 469–485

Crompton, R.H., Vereecke, E.E. & Thorpe, S.K.S., 2008, Locomotion and posture from the common hominoid ancestor to fully modern hominins, with special reference
to the last common panin/hominin ancestor, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 501–543

Dean, C., 2006, Tooth microstructure tracks the pace of human life history evolution, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22;273(1603):2799-808.

Gabunia & Vekua, (1995). A Plio-Pleistocene hominid from Dmanisi, East Georgia, Caucasus, Nature, 373, 509-512

Gabunia & Vekua, (1993). Dmanisi Man and the accompanying Vertebrate Fauna 1-60 (Metsneireba, Tbilisi)

Gabunia, Vekua & Lordkipanidze (2000) The environmental contexts of early human occupation of Georgia (Transcaucasia), Journal of Human Evolution
Volume 38, Issue 6, 785-802

Gabunia, Vekua, Lordkipanidze, Swisher, Ferring, Justus, Nioradze, Tvalchrelidze, Antón, Bosinski, Jöris, Lumley, Majsuradze, and Mouskhelishvili (2000), Earliest Pleistocene Hominid Cranial Remains from Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia: Taxonomy, Geological Setting, and Age, Science 288 (5468), 1019.

Harcourt-Smith, W.E.H. & Aiello, L.C., 2004, Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy: 204, 403-416

Lewin, 1999, Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction, Blackwell Science, UK I highly recommend this one for a beginner in this subject such as Kleiny

Morwood, M. J., O’Sullivan, P. B., Aziz, F. & Raza, A. Fission-track ages of stone
tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores. Nature 392, 173–-176
(1998).

Moore, M. & Brumm, A., 2007, Stone artifacts and hominins in island Southeast Asia: New insights from Flores, eastern Indonesia, Journal of Human Evolution 52, 85-102

Pares & Goguitchaichvili, 2001, On the earliest human occupation in Europe: Paleomagnetic constraints, Geofísica Internacional (2001), Vol. 40, Num. 3, pp. 239-242

Reed, K.E., 1996, Early hominid evolution and ecological change through the African
Plio-Pleistocene, Journal of Human Evolution, 32, 289–322

Semaw, S., 2000, The World’s Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their
Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns of Human Evolution Between 2•6–1•5 Million Years Ago, Journal of Archaeological Science, 27, 1197–1214

Sherwood, C.C., Subiaul, F. & Zawidzki, T.W., 2008, A natural history of the human mind: tracing evolutionary changes in brain and cognition, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 426–454

Steudal-Numbers, K.L., 2006, Energetics in Homo erectus and other early hominins: The consequences of increased lower-limb length, Journal of Human Evolution, 51: 445-453

The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2005, Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature, 437: 69-87 (this may be the article which requires close attention from Kleiny, especially in the case of the fused chromosones)

Tocheri, M.W., Orr, C.M., Jacofsky, M.C. & Marzke, M.W., 2008, The evolutionary history of the hominin hand since the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 544–562

Toth, N., 1993, Pan the tool-maker; investigations into the stone tool-making and tool-using capabilities of a bonobo. Journal of Archaeological Science; 20:81-91

Vekua, Lordkipanidze, Rightmire, Agusti, Ferring, Maisuradze, Mouskhelishvili, Nioradze, Leon, Tappen, Tvalchrelidze, & Zollikofer (2002), A New Skull of Early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia, Science 297 (5578), 85.

Wood, B. & Richmond, B.G., 2000, Human Evolution: Taxonomy and palaeobiology, Journal of Anatomy, 196, 19-60

Wood, B. & Lonergan, N., 2008, The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 354–376

Basically, it shows the amount of shit Pitman is producing. Especially the slander of Mary Schweitzer. I hate it when they quote mine her evidence.

Peter Harrison wrote::mod:

Shubee,

You have quote mined another member's post and deliberately misconstrued what they have said.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=56004&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=175#p1285532

This is an informal warning but the next will be a formal one. Start a collection of those and expect a holiday. You have already broken several of the forum rules in the time you've been here which means the next formal warning results in a suspension. Please retract your claim that Largenton was accusing you of being a sockpuppet. He identified you and Kleinman as two separate individuals, which was clear from the original context. You may not be willing to apologize but you can at least retract the comment and not act so dishonestly in future.

Oh Shubee, I thought I would remind you of this

You've clearly seen this, now please retract it or apologise.

Largenton wrote:

Peter Harrison wrote::mod:

Shubee,

You have quote mined another member's post and deliberately misconstrued what they have said.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=56004&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=175#p1285532

This is an informal warning but the next will be a formal one. Start a collection of those and expect a holiday. You have already broken several of the forum rules in the time you've been here which means the next formal warning results in a suspension. Please retract your claim that Largenton was accusing you of being a sockpuppet. He identified you and Kleinman as two separate individuals, which was clear from the original context. You may not be willing to apologize but you can at least retract the comment and not act so dishonestly in future.

Oh Shubee, I thought I would remind you of this

You've clearly seen this, now please retract it or apologise.

I hereby official retract (withdraw) the statement.

Shubee wrote:You're the liar because Pitman lists 107 references and many of them are decent, including http://www.geo.arizona.edu/

Um hum. You know what unexceptional scientific facts Pitman sourced from the University of Arizona web site ?

"However, what is unique about almost all fossilized trees is that they do not have roots or branches and little if any bark.1, 3 Also, the ones that have fallen and that are laying horizontally, align themselves in the same direction.1, 3"

Just in case you don't know, the "3" at the end of Pitman's sentence is his reference to:

3. Miller, Alisa C., Fossilized Trees of Petrified Forest National Park, from the website: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/, Nov. 22, 1998.

(same as the link you just copied, purporting to show that some of Pitman's references are decent)

But a search of the University of Arizona geo website at that link does not turn up Alisa C. Miller's paper, nor indeed any statement directly credited to Ms. Miller. Funny, it does turn up their announcement that she was awarded her BS degree in 2000 !


So, I repeat my statement that Pitman is lying in his article to make Genesis appear plausible - he commits various kinds of fraud. Wherever his sources are legitimate scientific research, he has stolen quotes out of context, or twisted their implication, or made up the information altogether, confident that no one will undertake to prove his dirty tricks.

I am not going to wade through any more of his twisted, antiscientific, biased garbage which poses as the truth for the Genesis-deluded. Pitman is a piece of shit. He's not worth another moment of my time.



Now, on to your accusation that I am a liar. I am not. I said, quote:

You know who Pitman's sources are, in his serious-looking list of references ? Take a closer look:

Veith, W. J., Amazing Discoveries Video Series, 2000. ( http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/ )
National Geographic On Assignment, Lucy the T-rex, 2000.
Miller, Alisa C., Fossilized Trees of Petrified Forest National Park, from the website: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/, Nov. 22, 1998.
Walter Brown, Robert Gentry, Mike Beesley, David Gentry, Lonnie Melanshenko,.The Young Age of the Earth, Video Series, 1993.

etc, etc, etc. Videos. Popular magazines. This isn't scholarly evidence.

Every word of that is true. Even though his link to the UofA geo website looks plausible, it's not scholarly evidence, and the others obviously aren't (unfortunately, I have to point out the obvious to you, because you have demonstrated such susceptibility to believing whatever suits your cult dogma). If I had said, for example "Pitman's sources are only Disney cartoons" then that might have been a lie (or perhaps satire, or perhaps an honest mistake). But I didn't. I didn't lie and I'm not a liar.

Ok, Shubee, you may have misspoken about me in "the heat of battle". You have a chance to retract your insulting statement that I am a liar. If you apologize, and retract your statement, then I will not report you to the mods for your violation of the rule against personal insults. Three strikes, you're out.

Shubee,

Were you not asked to stop spamming us with your blog?

I have two questions:

1. Do you accept the theory of evolution?

2. Where in your pseudo-science QM theory does the specific god from a specific primitive cult come into it? If what you have been talking isn't utter bollocks (let's pretend for a moment), where does your theory point to there being one god rather than several and that this god happens to exist in a fictional story book written by men 2000 years ago?

Thanks, I look forward to the answers.

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:

Peter Harrison wrote::mod:

Shubee,

You have quote mined another member's post and deliberately misconstrued what they have said.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=56004&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=175#p1285532

This is an informal warning but the next will be a formal one. Start a collection of those and expect a holiday. You have already broken several of the forum rules in the time you've been here which means the next formal warning results in a suspension. Please retract your claim that Largenton was accusing you of being a sockpuppet. He identified you and Kleinman as two separate individuals, which was clear from the original context. You may not be willing to apologize but you can at least retract the comment and not act so dishonestly in future.

Oh Shubee, I thought I would remind you of this

You've clearly seen this, now please retract it or apologise.

I hereby official retract (withdraw) the statement.

Ummm, Shubee, this requires you editing said post to take out my quote.

Largenton wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:

Peter Harrison wrote::mod:

Shubee,

You have quote mined another member's post and deliberately misconstrued what they have said.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=56004&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=175#p1285532

This is an informal warning but the next will be a formal one. Start a collection of those and expect a holiday. You have already broken several of the forum rules in the time you've been here which means the next formal warning results in a suspension. Please retract your claim that Largenton was accusing you of being a sockpuppet. He identified you and Kleinman as two separate individuals, which was clear from the original context. You may not be willing to apologize but you can at least retract the comment and not act so dishonestly in future.

Oh Shubee, I thought I would remind you of this

You've clearly seen this, now please retract it or apologise.

I hereby official retract (withdraw) the statement.

Ummm, Shubee, this requires you editing said post to take out my quote.

Actually Largenton, it does not if we can help it. In this forum at least, we prefer people apologized for their mistakes rather than edited them away. It also allows us all to see what Shubee has being doing wrong throughout the thread.

Largenton wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Largenton wrote:

Peter Harrison wrote::mod:

Shubee,

You have quote mined another member's post and deliberately misconstrued what they have said.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=56004&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=175#p1285532

This is an informal warning but the next will be a formal one. Start a collection of those and expect a holiday. You have already broken several of the forum rules in the time you've been here which means the next formal warning results in a suspension. Please retract your claim that Largenton was accusing you of being a sockpuppet. He identified you and Kleinman as two separate individuals, which was clear from the original context. You may not be willing to apologize but you can at least retract the comment and not act so dishonestly in future.

Oh Shubee, I thought I would remind you of this

You've clearly seen this, now please retract it or apologise.

I hereby official retract (withdraw) the statement.

Ummm, Shubee, this requires you editing said post to take out my quote.

No. Let me explain why. If your post is edited out then all your comments re the quote mine will look odd (they will refer to something that has now changed). Therefore the thread stays as it is. Edits should only be for typos and tiny mods that don't change the gist of the post.

Shubee wrote:You're the liar because Pitman lists 107 references and many of them are decent, including http://www.geo.arizona.edu/

You cannot call a member of this forum a liar. This is a personal attack. For your education and that of others reading, a personal attack on another member is something which is not allowed in this forum and this is extremely clear from the forum rules. If you have not read the rules yet but you are posting, do so now.

Shubee,

Along with preaching as well, the rules clearly state not to personally attack or insult other forum members. You have also been told this through informal warnings and even a formal warning. This is your third warning which wins you a holiday. Please read the rules so that next time, we aren't subjected to preaching and insults and you can continue to contribute to these discussions.

OK CJ & Peter Harrison, my apologies for making demands which were over the top and unreasonable. Thank you Shubee for actually retracting the statement.

Largenton wrote:OK CJ & Peter Harrison, my apologies for making demands which were over the top and unreasonable. Thank you Shubee for actually retracting the statement.

They weren't overly unreasonable but I'm glad you understand now.

Largenton wrote:OK CJ & Peter Harrison, my apologies for making demands which were over the top and unreasonable. Thank you Shubee for actually retracting the statement.

No problem with the request at all we just had to point out it wasn't practical.

As it turns out, Shubee does not have the immediate opportunity to retract his statement about me being a liar. If/when he returns from post-holiday, I expect we will all have moved on to other things. Fine with me.

Not enough time had elapsed for Shubee's reply or non-reply, so I had not yet reported him, before Peter Harrison happened to spot it and promptly issued the third warning and the consequence.

Peter, of course you know I agree with your decision. What I'm going to add is just my thanks for you (and the other mods) doing a careful and patient job of riding herd on all of us, theists and atheists alike. It can't be easy, some times. Thanks for the effort.

Peter Harrison wrote:

Largenton wrote:OK CJ & Peter Harrison, my apologies for making demands which were over the top and unreasonable. Thank you Shubee for actually retracting the statement.

They weren't overly unreasonable but I'm glad you understand now.

I would rather be honest and retract my demands politely than causing more problems for the moderators here. You do a good job of keeping the forums accessible.

soul_biscuit wrote:

Weaver wrote:THIS Earth isn't it. There are mountains (literally) of evidence showing that it's simply not possible.

Weaver, don't forget that it's entirely possible that our world, with all its evidence of advanced age in place, popped into existence earlier this morning. The problem with Shubee's idea isn't just that it's astronomonically improbable; it's also unfalsifiable.

Oh, I know. That's why the entire idea is so absurd - once you posit a deity which can subvert all physical rules to make observational reality in doubt, there are no limits.

Of course, one then wonders why such a powerful creature would leave such a fucked up creation lying around and not try to fix obvious mistakes

I assume there is a standard length of time for a moderator-induced holiday - how long until we'll have a chance to read Shubee's response to my questions? (Well, I guess that's two questions - how long until Shubee can come back outside to play, and how long until he answers questions. The first should have a standardized answer, the second is quite possibly dependent on the future nova expansion of the Sun.)

I wonder if Shubee’s ban wasn’t self-engineered?

Shubbee got a 7 day suspension as is usual for the 3rd warning.

CJ wrote:Shubbee got a 7 day suspension as is usual for the 3rd warning.

Cool - a whole week in which to investigate other creationinst ramblings and learn some more real science from members' responses in the process.

Good riddance.

I'm sick of these creationists coming here and playing by their own rules, i.e. shift the burden, move the goalposts, ignore the evidence, lie about the other side. The RDF shouldn't be paying for server space for this shit.

Shubee wrote:

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:Your theory is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would not be consistent with it!
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is such an observation. If there is, I'm sure you can think of one.

I have another theory. My special auxiliary theory is that I exist. This is troubling! My theory is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would not be consistent with it! Should I lose sleep over this?

DanDare wrote:Shubee's claim to exist is perfectly falsifiable. In a universe where he exists we get this thread and in a universe where he didn't exist we would not get this thread.

You've made up your own definition of falsifiability. My existence is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would not be consistent with it. My logic is inescapable if soul_biscuit's definition is correct.

No Shubee, that is the definition of falsifiability, that you can make an observation that will determine if a proposition is true or false. If you cannot find any way to make that observation, even hypothetically, then the proposition is not falsifiable.
Proposition: Shubee exists.
Observation: Shubee making entries on the forum would verify an entity calling itself Shubee exists.
Conclussion: Shubee does indeed exist, at least while making forum entries. Does Shubee exist while off on a one week retreat from the forum?

DanDare wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Shubee wrote:

soul_biscuit wrote:Your theory is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would not be consistent with it!
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is such an observation. If there is, I'm sure you can think of one.

I have another theory. My special auxiliary theory is that I exist. This is troubling! My theory is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would not be consistent with it! Should I lose sleep over this?

DanDare wrote:Shubee's claim to exist is perfectly falsifiable. In a universe where he exists we get this thread and in a universe where he didn't exist we would not get this thread.

You've made up your own definition of falsifiability. My existence is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would not be consistent with it. My logic is inescapable if soul_biscuit's definition is correct.

No Shubee, that is the definition of falsifiability, that you can make an observation that will determine if a proposition is true or false. If you cannot find any way to make that observation, even hypothetically, then the proposition is not falsifiable.
Proposition: Shubee exists.
Observation: Shubee making entries on the forum would verify an entity calling itself Shubee exists.
Conclussion: Shubee does indeed exist, at least while making forum entries. Does Shubee exist while off on a one week retreat from the forum?

Schrodenger's Shubee: At some time in the future, Shubee receives his final warning - one more incident and he'll be banned. Another member opens the DC page on RDF, and notices Shubee has posted, followed by a Mod post.
Question: Before opening the page to read Shubee's or the Mod's post - Has Shubee been banned? Or does he exist as a cloud of probabilities which can only be determined through observer interaction?

Seriously, though - I don't want to see anyone banned. I hope Shubee takes his warning in stride and returns to answer some questions here.

Shubee wrote:

whippa wrote:

Shubee wrote:When I mentioned the quantum creation of the earth, I was referring to the conjecture that quantum mechanical processes could transform a lifeless yet warm, water-covered planet into a paradise with birds, exotic land and sea creatures, and man, in only 6 days.

Which is still so massively improbable that it's essentially an impossibility. It's more statistically improbable than those dodgy probabilities that creationist quacks invent to show DNA couldn't magically appear.

Correct, but the essential point is that the probability is nonzero and mathematicians agree that even events of zero probability can happen.

No, zero probability is by definition impossible. You can have a probability approaching zero that can still happen, but not actually zero. But the creation from nothing of complex matter is impossible via quantum mechanics. Your proposed mechanism is bunk. All quantum creation events are at close to zero point energy, and involve opposing particle types. So, each electron (for example) would be accompanied by a positron. It's really quite short lived.
And FYI: Quoting from creationist websites is not the same is using actual science publications.

Shubee wrote:

whippa wrote:And again, there's significant evidence that this is not what happened.

Actually, there is hard physical evidence that it did happen. See The Fossil Record.

Sorry, for some reason (maybe the blatant creationism bias) I don't happen to believe anything on that site. I don't suppose you have some peer-reviewed and independently verified evidence?

Shubee wrote:There is also good evidence for devolution.

A term which shows quite nicely that you have no idea about the theory of evolution.

Shubee wrote:I bet that if remarkably advanced extraterrestrials would come to Earth with video evidence that they witnessed the Earth's supernatural creation, then all scientists would become quantum creationists.

Yeah, because no-one could possibly fake video evidence.