| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
theSaiGirl
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
no offence but i do my own research and form my own opinon(may as well just believe everything the mainstream media says otherwise), and have looked into witnesses alot also. which was the only reason i was asking if their was more on the guy in the last clip so i could form my own opinon on if there is something in what he says or not.
thanks for the links to other peoples opinons but im not to certain if i'll agree on some of the conclusions they formed in their opinon unless claims can be proven 100%, ie: not just a case of someone stood in the wrong postion inorder to see a plane so all they see is the explosion etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theSaiGirl
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: re: Relative reliability of "eyewitness testimony" |
|
|
=============================
Human Memory is Unreliable and so is Eyewitness Testimony
Reports from eyewitnesses play an important role in the development and propagation of both religious and paranormal beliefs. People are often ready to believe the personal reports of what others say that they have seen and experienced. Thus, it is important to consider just how reliable people’s memory and their testimony can be.
Perhaps the most important thing to note is that, even though there is a popular perception of eyewitness testimony being among the most reliable forms of evidence available, the criminal justice system treats such testimony as being among the most fragile and even unreliable available. Consider the following quote from Levin and Cramer’s Problems and Materials on Trial Advocacy:
“Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred.
It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.” Prosecutors recognize that eyewitness testimony, even when given in all honesty and sincerity, isn’t necessarily credible. Merely because a person claims to have seen something does not mean that what they remember seeing really happened — one reason why is that not all eyewitnesses are the same. To simply be a competent witness (competent, which is not the same as credible), a person must have adequate powers of perception, must be able to remember and report well, and must be able and willing to tell the truth
http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/eyewitness.htm
=================================
http://www.law.wayne.edu/Faculty/Fac_web/moran/Excerpt%20from%20Scient ific%20Evidence%20in%20Civil%20and%20Criminal%20Cases.htm
=========================================
Research on eyewitness testimony accuracy as well as on children's susceptibility to suggestion has led sceptics to the belief that memory is malleable since the sources of information in memory that are used to construct memories of the past can be confused. That is, sceptics have fond that historically accurate sources of memory can be contùsed with memory fiom other sources.
...
Some memory recall exercises used by some therapists are believed by sceptics to not only create multiple sources from which memories could be constnicted but to additionally encourage patients to confuse these sources. Sceptics have also hypothesized that therapeutic bias alone could provide suggestions that could serve as an additional source for rnemory construction.
.....The French psychologist most famous for his intelligence test constnictions, Alfred Binet (1 969). did some of the earliest work in this area by assessing children's vulnerabiiity to suggestion
by presenting hem with misleading questions about things they had previously seen. He found that misleading questions produced distortions in their recall. Similar research is still done today. The most famous is a series of studies started twenty years ago by
Elizabeth Lofnis and her colleagues (Loftus & Palmer. 1974; Loftus & Hohan. 1989; Weingardt. Lofnis & Lindsay, 1995
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22852.pdf
==================================================
================
The documented eyewitness testimony of consistent impartial observers is the next most reliable class of evidence. Notice the key words: Documented, eyewitness, consistent, impartial observers. The "documented" part means that the person left a record that everyone knows to be authentic. The "eyewitness" part may be assumed, unless there is evidence to the contrary, if the person claimed to be an eyewitness and was actually in a position to see the event. "Consistent" here merely means that the different observers do not directly contradict each other or themselves on this data point. The "impartial" part may be difficult to determine at times, but it becomes quite relevant if there is only a single observer to the event. If there is an established motive to lie or self-delude, we should want independent confirmation from other observers, preferably with different motivations.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/naturalistic_inquir y.html
==========================================
==========================
We are often forced to depend on people’s accounts of events we cannot have first-hand knowledge about. The profession of journalism exists to share information about what is happening in other parts of the world. Our legal system depends on eyewitness testimony to determine facts in criminal proceedings. Religious texts relate the experiences of people in support of the existence of a deity.
I have personally attended events that were later reported in newspapers or on television and found significant errors or omissions. My own memory has been proven to be wrong, as I’ve learned when playing back recordings of meetings I’ve attended. Studies have shown that people witnessing the same events have different memories, and those memories were not just shaped by the events themselves but the witnesses’ internal processing of those memories based on other experiences. These considerations make it clear that we should be very careful when using eyewitness testimony to determine the facts of events. And this all assumes that people WANT to report the events accurately (that is, they don’t have an agenda that leads them to intentionally lie).
One way to determine the truth of an event is to find several people who recall the same details, have not collaborated to alter each other’s perceptions, and have no reason to lie. External “physical” evidence should also be available, something which can be checked by anybody. As a general rule, don’t take any one person’s (or group’s) word for something.
The standards should be even higher for events that either support or claim to disprove principles that many people are likely to use in their lives, because the consequences can be very great. Such events include those that prove the existence of a deity, the set of observations that support natural laws that predict how nature behaves and the actions of our leaders.
http://ideaexplorer.blogspot.com/2007/06/standards-of-evidence.html
============================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxuil6Gv0c&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVwuf_AMFs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR183M_VJas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVqJMar7is
Was Evan Fairbanks an "eyewitness" to the CGI we see on his famous shot of the transparent "south Tower hit" cartoon ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theSaiGirl
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:17 am Post subject: Practical implications of this discussion |
|
|
re: Practical implications of this discussion for movement activism
==================
Admittedly, my own views on the reliability of "eyewitness" testimony are certainly tainted by a definite bias.
Like you, I could care less about "winning the argument" over TV fakery and whether actual planes crashed into Towers on 9/11.
But for me, its even more critical than just arriving at some sense of narrative coherence.
And here, I must deviate a bit into some slightly "off-topic" discussion about this, by diving into the realms of politics, propaganda and movement strategy.
I do indeed have "ulterior" motives: namely, a "political" agenda for the "truth movement:" as a whole: the primacy and urgent strategic imperative of
NAILING THE MEDIA as the #1 Perps of 9/11.
And nailing the media for the continuous ongoing psy-ops brainwashing of the entire Orwellian "Global War on Terror", as perpetrated by media institutions of both a corporate or (fake) "alternative" character.
"It's the MEDIA"...
From about the first year after 9/11, I have argued persistently (and fractiously at times) for establish the CENTRALITY of the media psy-op and its corporate criminal perpetrators , as our top priority targets, if we are ever to obtain the justice that would be commensurate with any kind of meaningful "9/11 truth".
The primacy of that political objective, is also my own primary motive for arguing this here and elsewhere.
So I confess to having a clear political and strategic bias/agenda - when it comes to this issues of TV fakery., "planes vs. no-planes" and the reliability of "eyewitness" testimony
My practical motive in trying to persuade others on these issues, is to move them in that strategic direction, as a matter not only of "research" and the establishment of some abstract "truth" --
but much more importantly -
- as a critical question of 9/11 movement activism.
http://www.911researchers.com/node/672
http://www.911researchers.com/blog/110?page=1
http://www.911researchers.com/node/919 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theSaiGirl
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theSaiGirl
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | So, after a break from all this, I'm back to find Andrew and a delegation of 'researchers' finest still peddling their wares.
. |
Wey Hey!! Back again!
Enjoyed your hols? How was Denmark then?
Usual disparaging remarks, ay?
Enjoy!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chekky,
Me old china plate. Be honest with me. Put me out of my misery. I could be way off beam here, but would it be... could it be... that you have graced us with your presence tonight because of the similarity of this:
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".
from http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece (for a while till it disappears into the archive)
to this:
Kerosene burns at about 820C under optimum conditions. The WTC towers collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds respectively - this is (essentially) at a rate of freefall i.e. they fell with no resistance - at all. For this to have happened, all 283 steel beams, which ran (in welded sections) from the top to the bottom of the building, would have to melt through or snap very suddenly. Unfortunately, for proponents of the official story, the melting point of steel is about 1480C so no kerosene or office-flotsam-and-jetsam based fire could have caused the steel to either melt or weaken to the point of collapse. This conclusion is borne out by the result of the 24-hour-long fire at the Windsor Tower in Madrid (on 12th Feb 2005). This was also a steel-framed building and, though badly damaged, did not collapse to the ground. Neither did the Empire State Building collapse in 1945, when it was hit by a B25 Bomber.
Many people do not seem to be aware that three large steel-framed buildings were completely destroyed on Sept 11th 2001 – WTC 1 and 2 and WTC Building 7 (sometimes called the Salomon Brothers' Building). At 5:20 pm, the building collapsed at virtual free-fall rate, in 6.6 seconds, into its own footprint - no plane had hit this building, only a small amount of debris.
from page 5 of this:
http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/__assets/kuzur9beeawzyzjo0v.pdf
(also note the closing quote from each reference).
I know, I know - I'm probably wrong, but hey - it keeps me interested, ye know?
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: Re: re: Relative reliability of "eyewitness testimony& |
|
|
| theSaiGirl wrote: | =============================
Human Memory is Unreliable and so is Eyewitness Testimony
Reports from eyewitnesses play an important role in the development and propagation of both religious and paranormal beliefs. People are often ready to believe the personal reports of what others say that they have seen and experienced. Thus, it is important to consider just how reliable people’s memory and their testimony can be.
Perhaps the most important thing to note is that, even though there is a popular perception of eyewitness testimony being among the most reliable forms of evidence available, the criminal justice system treats such testimony as being among the most fragile and even unreliable available. Consider the following quote from Levin and Cramer’s Problems and Materials on Trial Advocacy:
“Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred.
It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.” Prosecutors recognize that eyewitness testimony, even when given in all honesty and sincerity, isn’t necessarily credible. Merely because a person claims to have seen something does not mean that what they remember seeing really happened — one reason why is that not all eyewitnesses are the same. To simply be a competent witness (competent, which is not the same as credible), a person must have adequate powers of perception, must be able to remember and report well, and must be able and willing to tell the truth
http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/eyewitness.htm
=================================
http://www.law.wayne.edu/Faculty/Fac_web/moran/Excerpt%20from%20Scient ific%20Evidence%20in%20Civil%20and%20Criminal%20Cases.htm
=========================================
Research on eyewitness testimony accuracy as well as on children's susceptibility to suggestion has led sceptics to the belief that memory is malleable since the sources of information in memory that are used to construct memories of the past can be confused. That is, sceptics have fond that historically accurate sources of memory can be contùsed with memory fiom other sources.
...
Some memory recall exercises used by some therapists are believed by sceptics to not only create multiple sources from which memories could be constnicted but to additionally encourage patients to confuse these sources. Sceptics have also hypothesized that therapeutic bias alone could provide suggestions that could serve as an additional source for rnemory construction.
.....The French psychologist most famous for his intelligence test constnictions, Alfred Binet (1 969). did some of the earliest work in this area by assessing children's vulnerabiiity to suggestion
by presenting hem with misleading questions about things they had previously seen. He found that misleading questions produced distortions in their recall. Similar research is still done today. The most famous is a series of studies started twenty years ago by
Elizabeth Lofnis and her colleagues (Loftus & Palmer. 1974; Loftus & Hohan. 1989; Weingardt. Lofnis & Lindsay, 1995
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22852.pdf
==================================================
================
The documented eyewitness testimony of consistent impartial observers is the next most reliable class of evidence. Notice the key words: Documented, eyewitness, consistent, impartial observers. The "documented" part means that the person left a record that everyone knows to be authentic. The "eyewitness" part may be assumed, unless there is evidence to the contrary, if the person claimed to be an eyewitness and was actually in a position to see the event. "Consistent" here merely means that the different observers do not directly contradict each other or themselves on this data point. The "impartial" part may be difficult to determine at times, but it becomes quite relevant if there is only a single observer to the event. If there is an established motive to lie or self-delude, we should want independent confirmation from other observers, preferably with different motivations.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/naturalistic_inquir y.html
==========================================
==========================
We are often forced to depend on people’s accounts of events we cannot have first-hand knowledge about. The profession of journalism exists to share information about what is happening in other parts of the world. Our legal system depends on eyewitness testimony to determine facts in criminal proceedings. Religious texts relate the experiences of people in support of the existence of a deity.
I have personally attended events that were later reported in newspapers or on television and found significant errors or omissions. My own memory has been proven to be wrong, as I’ve learned when playing back recordings of meetings I’ve attended. Studies have shown that people witnessing the same events have different memories, and those memories were not just shaped by the events themselves but the witnesses’ internal processing of those memories based on other experiences. These considerations make it clear that we should be very careful when using eyewitness testimony to determine the facts of events. And this all assumes that people WANT to report the events accurately (that is, they don’t have an agenda that leads them to intentionally lie).
One way to determine the truth of an event is to find several people who recall the same details, have not collaborated to alter each other’s perceptions, and have no reason to lie. External “physical” evidence should also be available, something which can be checked by anybody. As a general rule, don’t take any one person’s (or group’s) word for something.
The standards should be even higher for events that either support or claim to disprove principles that many people are likely to use in their lives, because the consequences can be very great. Such events include those that prove the existence of a deity, the set of observations that support natural laws that predict how nature behaves and the actions of our leaders.
http://ideaexplorer.blogspot.com/2007/06/standards-of-evidence.html
============================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxuil6Gv0c&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVwuf_AMFs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR183M_VJas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVqJMar7is
Was Evan Fairbanks an "eyewitness" to the CGI we see on his famous shot of the transparent "south Tower hit" cartoon ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4 |
traumatic events stick in the mind more so than any other.
its true witnesses can be unreliable, but 9/10 they are trying to remember small details, for example: what colour cloths was the suspect wearing, do you recall the colour of the car, did you see anyone acting suspicous etc etc.
however when it comes to seeing a passenger jet crashing into a building or a building exploding i fail to see how people can forget or be mistaken, that image will be with them the rest of their lives.
so witnesses are reliable on major detail and all witness are correct where 9/11 and the towers are concerned, some say there was a plane some say there was an explosion, some saw both, tv pictures shows us a plane and an explosion, witnesses fit in with what is seen.
the problem starts when people twist the words of witnesses to fit the theorys.
yet it is simple logic some people would not of been in a postion to of seen the approaching craft, some would of seen the craft and missed part of the explosion or all of the explosion depending on obstructions, some would of seen neither and some would of seen both. nothing suspicious, that is the case at any scene where any accident has occured.
however ignore one set of witnesses or call them all liars and only accept the ones who saw nothing, then you can paint a differant picture altogether. "what accident? none of these people saw it" " yes but these did" "ah them, they are all liars and are working for the perps"
there were certainly agents on the ground on 9/11 and media deception(which did not kick in untill later in the day or the next day, check the news footage from the day and the amount of reports of bombs going of in the buildings the lack of debris at the pentagon etc, does that sound like a censored media to you at that stage?) but so far i feel it learns more towards selling the offical story rather than decieving people about planes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Chekky,
Me old china plate. Be honest with me. Put me out of my misery. I could be way off beam here, but would it be... could it be... that you have graced us with your presence tonight because of the similarity of this:
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".
from http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece (for a while till it disappears into the archive)
to this:
Kerosene burns at about 820C under optimum conditions. The WTC towers collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds respectively - this is (essentially) at a rate of freefall i.e. they fell with no resistance - at all. For this to have happened, all 283 steel beams, which ran (in welded sections) from the top to the bottom of the building, would have to melt through or snap very suddenly. Unfortunately, for proponents of the official story, the melting point of steel is about 1480C so no kerosene or office-flotsam-and-jetsam based fire could have caused the steel to either melt or weaken to the point of collapse. This conclusion is borne out by the result of the 24-hour-long fire at the Windsor Tower in Madrid (on 12th Feb 2005). This was also a steel-framed building and, though badly damaged, did not collapse to the ground. Neither did the Empire State Building collapse in 1945, when it was hit by a B25 Bomber.
Many people do not seem to be aware that three large steel-framed buildings were completely destroyed on Sept 11th 2001 – WTC 1 and 2 and WTC Building 7 (sometimes called the Salomon Brothers' Building). At 5:20 pm, the building collapsed at virtual free-fall rate, in 6.6 seconds, into its own footprint - no plane had hit this building, only a small amount of debris.
from page 5 of this:
http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/__assets/kuzur9beeawzyzjo0v.pdf
(also note the closing quote from each reference).
I know, I know - I'm probably wrong, but hey - it keeps me interested, ye know? |
Andy baby - if I may? - certainly there is a similarity, although whether similar enough to make the late George Harrison or a college essay comparison program nervous, I don't know. It's been said that research is only well disguised multiple plagiarism.
As to your current misery insinuation, I regret you'll need to be more explicit about what you mean to elicit a meaningful answer.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
