Most everyone has heard the parable about the blind men and the elephant, of which, the object lesson to be learned from this story is that when we are, for example, limited to how we define something by just our touch, and further are only touching part of the object, than our conclusion, thereof, though honest, will be fundamentally wrong, because we have only touched part of the object, and have viewed none of it. In our modern age, we do so find as, for instance, in soccer, that when a play is video reviewed for a possible foul, necessitating a penalty kick, that multiple angles of the incident are available, to be reviewed and of which, because there are multiple angles, this thus allows the referee to come to a conclusion that is going to be far more accurate, as opposed to just one view and one perspective.
Another thing, about videos so captured or pictures so taken, is that we as a people, are three-dimensional, whereas videos and pictures are primarily view in just two-dimensions, signifying that because of the lack of that third-dimension, we don’t ever truly have the definitive perspective in our sight. Additionally, videos and pictures can be distorted, simply because of the viewing angle so taken, in which the perspective so perceived by our eyes, is actually out of scale to what the object really is, making it therefore more difficult for our mind to appropriately compensate for that distortion.
In short, though we might think that pictures and videos that have never been edited, are in their form, always true; but that isn’t necessarily the case, because the perspective makes a material difference to the conclusions that we may so draw. This signifies that when judging the accuracy of any media in regards to a lawsuit or of a trial, that the media so being presented is going to have within it, an implied perspective bias, which is often difficult for most people to overcome in their processing of that information.
While it is true that pictures and videos do provide us with material information, it is also true, that to take such at always face value is probably a mistake. This indicates that even when we have irrefutable video evidence, that such evidence, can be legitimately interpreted by different people in different ways. For instance, who hasn’t seen a video of a vociferous crowd gathering in which it appears that there are a whole multitude of people, excited about this or that; but when the camera subsequently pans back, we find that in actuality, it isn’t really all that much of a crowd at all. In other words, pictures and videos taken, can be done in a selective way which distorts the truth of the story so being told so as to favor one viewpoint over another.
So then, while it is true that eye witnesses to a particular crime or event can themselves remember such an event in a manner which isn’t consistent to the known facts of that event; we also do find that cameras and videos are themselves subject to recording events in such a way that the story so being told isn’t a true reflection of what so occurred in totality– or in other words the camera can and does lie.