EyeWitnesses

[DaveyJ]

The entire basis for the theory that expolsives were used, is eye witnesses testimony.

I studied pyschology, and its amazing how flawed eye witness testimony can be.

"Jurors treat eyewitness identification as compelling evidence in both civil and criminal trials. The strength of eyewitness testimony is demonstrated by a study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1992) that recorded verdicts in a mock trial. Although jurors rely heavily on eyewitness identification, there is overwhelming evidence that eyewitness identification is highly fallible and that eyewitness confidence is a poor guide to accuracy.
"
"Distorted Retrospective Eyewitness Reports as Functions of Feedback and Delay
Participant?witnesses viewed a crime video and attempted to identify the culprit from a culprit-absent lineup. The 253 mistaken-identification eyewitnesses were randomly given confirming, disconfirming, or no feedback regarding their identifications. Feedback was immediate or delayed 48 hr, and measures were immediate or delayed 48 hr. Confirming, but not disconfirming, feedback led to distortions of eyewitnesses? recalled confidence, amount of attention paid during witnessing, goodness of view, ability to make out facial details, length of time to identification, and other measures related to the witnessing experience.
"

People often hear and see what they expect and want to see. Just beacuse people hear a bang, dosnt mean it was an expolsion. There is alot of evidence to suggest that EWT is extremely flawed, one case demonstrated how children whos school was taken hostage by terrorists could give accurate descriptions of what happpened and recall vidid memorys and genunially belive them, even though school records show them to be on holiday at the time. With leading questions and everyone having watched endless programs about the towers falling, its possible peoples recolection of what happened could change

Most courts now will find it hard to find a defendant guilty by EWT without other evidence as well.

for a little further reading - http://www.psychology.org/cgi-bin/links2/search.cgi?query=eyewitness
________
Vaporizer

[Mooter]

Totally agree about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. I was always taught in history that eyewitness testimony could only really be used to back up other sources of primary evidence.

Thus I give you this:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F1 1+eyewitness

This also applies to the "hundreds" of eyewitnesses that saw a 757 hitting the pentagon - except that there is no other primary evidence to back that claim up.

[Johnny Pixels]

[Pikey]

Davy J states:-

[Mooter]

[Johnny Pixels]

[MiniMauve]

[Mooter]

[Johnny Pixels]

[Mooter]

[Johnny Pixels]

[DaveyJ]

speaking of hijackers on planes, way to hijack the thread

all i was saying is that eye witness testimony can be unrealible and someone had posted a documentary which was just a montage of people saying "i heard three bangs, then the tower fell"

and when i said eye witness testimony is the only evidence is beacuse its the only thing that could be brought forward in a court of law, if the truth movment chose to follow it through that far. Because there is no one willing to testify or admit they were part of the extensive demolition crew, expolsives team or many other stages of a multi layed black op. There is no evidence to suggest reisidue of expolsives, there is nothing left of expolsives, wiring cases, mis-fired charges that would of been damaged by the plane hitting the buidling.


also to say a plane didnt hit the pentagon is daft, what else could of happened to flight 77. What would be the point in hijacking an aircraft, then disposing of it in probably the greatest trick of mis-direction in history, to fire a missile at a target. Why not just use the plane.
________
Brookwood