Single Status Update
"Innocent until proven guilty, except when accused"
"Eyewitness testimony is evidence, except for in cryptozoology and UFO sightings."
Not trying to make any commentary of any kind, but I always find this type of stuff interesting as these are hypocritical situations that everyone seems to practice. Just to give an example on the two; a liar is guilty until it is proven they were telling the truth, meaning they are guilty the moment they are accused and eyewitness testimony is not evidence for their case.
I can understand making exceptions in some cases, but sometimes it just doesn't make. For example, if 10 people say they saw a person commit a crime the accused is guilty as long as there are no unbelievable contradictions in the account. Conversely, if thousands of people all saw a scientifically unprovable scenario at the same time in real time it's a mass hallucination and none of them are telling the truth because what they saw can't be proven invalidating eyewitness testimony. When I look at examples like this I wonder what is the threshold for eyewitness testimony being accepted as evidence nd just being mass hysteria. I know 1 witness is not considered enough, but at what number does it become too many to be believable? It's just a really weird phenomenon in my opinion.