The use of similarity as identity in debunking arguments.
I posted this originally on 05/02/14 at ufonv.
It is a generalized way of thinking to use similarity to imply identity, in many cases that way of thinking works because identity implies similarity, but not the other way around.
This simplistic way of thinking is even used by the top analysts in some of these organizations dedicated to debunk video sightings, that is their way of thinking, which is wrong of course.
For example some people have claimed that some footage presented from some videographers is fake because you can build a model of what is presented in the videographer's footage and then create a footage of that model that is "similar" to the footage being "analyzed". If we accept this kind of logic then we have to accept their application in any similar situation, lets say for example we build a model of earth and then take footage of that model in a black background, that footage will be similar to any footage of earth taken from space in a certain distance, then applying our debunker logic that implies that any footage of earth from space is fake, or by the same idea almost anything is fake, because almost for anything a model of that can be build and then footage can be taken. So these debunkers are all wrong, because always they fail to really look at any footage in its own merit, they see it with the optics of looking for details that will reveal footage fakeness, they are blinded really by their incapacity to differentiate reality from fiction, that incapacity is deeply rooted in many people at all levels.
They are unable to see consistency between different footage, if the same phenomenon is presented in many different footage all around the world, they will never see the implications of that consistency, they are blinded by their dogmatism and wrong basic logic.