I'm not claiming that those people are right, only that the "videos ... speak for themselves" claim isn't true. If people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? If so, can we also say ambiguous studies on whether ivemectin was effective against covid "speak for themselves"? Or does it just become a no true scotsman where you can say whatever evidence "speaks for themselves", and anyone who disagrees are lunatics?

Original context: He was reacting to a study about chemicals in the water triggering the natural sex-change ability of some frogs.

Sooo yeah, "they're turning the frogs trans" would have been more accurate, but would have sounded even more absurd.