Moved:CIT's NoC is not possible

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
…
12
13

Moved:CIT's NoC is not possible; Impossible theory
Topic Started: May 24 2008, 09:38 PM (4,415 Views)
C.H.	Aug 22 2008, 03:28 PM Post #301
Posts: 38 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08	Uruk False memory isn't only caused by "priming" or the need to conform. When events happen so quickly the concious mind cannot process everything at an instant. Uncertainty and gaps inevitably result and the mind tends to fill in those gaps. This is a non-answer Uruk, and you know it. If they are 'filling in gaps', how did they all arrive at the NOC path? How does that even begin to explain what Roosevelt Roberts saw? Quote: Even the CIT wittnesses recollection vary. many of them say that the plane passed directly over thier heads when you know that cannot have been the case. The ANC witnnesses necessarliy had to see the plane at a distance. That has to be the case because the plane could not have passed directly over thier heads and then passed over the area of the explosion in order to be hidden by the fireball by the witnesses further to the south of them. Every single one of the wittnesses claim the plane hit the building that means the plane had to be in the general vicinity of the explosion. And any magician knows an illusion can only work from a particular perspective. All witnesses get things wrong- they aren't FDRs. But as far as what humans can observe and recall, i.e. the general placement of the plane, all the witnesses are in agreement. The ANC witnesses don't say the plane passed 'directly over their heads'. Quote: you cannot hide the plane by the explosion for every wittness Of course, the plane could not be hidden from everyone- Roosevelt saw it afterall. The plan was simply to cover their tracks with the C130 and E4B to confuse anyone who saw the plane. From there cognitive dissonance, priming, and the status quo bias would take over (which isn't to say that there aren't more flyover witnesses). Quote: And as for the link you provided concerning the physical evidence, what are the qualifications of the people who wrote those web pages? Why don't you read the paper and find out? Quote: A. K. Dewdney is a mathematician and computer scientist who lives in London, Ontario, Canada. <www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/> G. W. Longspaugh is an aerospace engineer who makes his home in Fort Worth, Texas, USA. I couldn't find anything about the author of the second page except that he's from Finland and is disliked by the JREFers, neither of which have any bearing on the merit of his argument. Edited by C.H., Aug 22 2008, 03:30 PM.
Posts: 38 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08


Bitterman	Aug 22 2008, 08:38 PM Post #302
Posts: 284 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Where is the brave soul who wants to tell me WHY Mr. Paik is a delusional? Anyone.....anyone?? Bueller?? Puiguiloryorr?? Opinion boy? Other opinion boy Bret? oh wait, he was banned.... C'mon guys.....that can't be all you have???? C'maaaan!!! Pathetic. You guys should be banned too.....just the same as Bret.....turn on IGNORE and that's all you got......"waaa, waaa.....they are wrong because, because.....BECAUSE I SAID SO....waaa, waaa..."
Posts: 284 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


uruk	Aug 23 2008, 02:18 AM Post #303
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Quote: You know WHY Lagasse can't be wrong?? He was on the north-ish side of the gas station.....if he ACTUALLY saw the plane on the south side......he could have only have seen it through the canopy of the station....which I don't know about you, but I don't have X-ray vision.......Lagasse doesn't either.......it can only happen one way. Oh yeah, and he on fucking CAMERA.....North side of the station....couldn't have seen the plane from any other side, fuck. Tell me how Lagasse COULD see the plane SOUTH of him on that side of the station......pull that one out of your ass.....I gotta hear it..... He would only be unable to see the plane only when it was directly behind the store and above the canopy. The plane was on a decending angle and would have been visible to Lagasse as the plane came into his field of view from under the canopy and crossed the highway. Legasse claims he wittnessed the impact very clearly. He even mentions a yaw manouver so that the plane lines up in the position it would have been coming in from the southern direction. If you look at the CIGO video you'll notice that Legasse is in between the pump and his unit. That would mean that he is faceing away from the ANC area and was facing toward the south. Legasse admits that he did not see the plane approaching from the direction of the Annex. He only assumes its approach. That means he did not see the plane untill it was on its way heading to the east side of the Citgo toward the Pentagon. East side of the Citgo means that he would have been able to see it passing to the south side of the CITGO because by then it would have been in his field of view. Maybe the sound of the aircraft reflecting back fom any structures to the north of the CIGO may have put a "priming" factor in his head that the plane was to the North of his postion. Morin mentions hearing the sound of the plane echoing off the Annex buildings ahead and to the left of him even though the plane was behind him. Remember the plane was going fast. Think about how confusing at first it may have been when you are suddenly surprised by an highly unusual event. It would take your mind a bit tof time to sort out the confusion. There would naturally be gaps or uncertainty in you recollections. As time goes by your mind fills in the gaps with what you believe or feel to make sense. Sometimes what you think makes sense might not actually be. Remember in the CIT video, Legasse states in an early interviw that he was blown into his car by the planes back wash. (He also missremembers which pump he was at untill he was confronted by the truth of the security camera video tape. All he knew at the time was that after the the plane passed he was in his car. His mind filled in the missing information with the false memory of being blown in the car. Now it could quite possibly be that he only conciously picked up the planes sound coming from behind him (possibly being echoed back from some structures to the north of the CITGO) and seeing the plane impact the Pentagon. His mind could then have created the false memory of the plane passing to the north of the CITGO from what he conciously picked up. As far as being absolutely, 100%, etched in his mind, sure of a memory, think about his memory of being blown into his car. If you asked him before he saw the video, how certain do you think he would have told you he was about that memory? Quote: Unfortunately for you, a form of Triangulation works against you here. Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios all saw the plane on the North side, which means they were located south of the plane as it flew by. The Cemetery witnesses all saw the plane on the north side, flying over the Navy Annex and by them being North of the plane as it passed by them, it flew in between the two groups. Lastly, we have Mr. Boger......who was good enough to watch the plane come at him from the Helipad remember?? In his words he says the plane was on the right of the Citgo station. Turcios, Brooks and Legasse were all taken by surprise when the plane passed by them because thier attention was focused on something else when the plane flew by. There would have been a high probability for gaps and error in thier recollections. Turcios was also on the south side of the CITGO with the main body of the store to his back. He could not have seen the approach from the west. He could only see it when it got to the east passed the CITGO. The cemetary wittnesses were to the north of the event. With the plane and the Citgo being to the south of them at a moderate distance they would have had difficulty in judgeing the distance between the CITGO and the plane. Depth perception gets worse farther away the objects are from you. It would have been difficult for them to know wether the plane was on the north or south side of the CITGO unless it were to have passed directly infront or behind the CITGO. But the plane was above the the CITGO. There would have been no frame of reference. Sean Bolger was also caught by surprise. He was quoted as saying "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." "big nose" suggests that the plane was pretty close when he became concious of it. His mind could have filled in gaps with false memory. Edited by uruk, Aug 23 2008, 06:30 PM.
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


uruk	Aug 23 2008, 02:33 AM Post #304
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Quote: Also, nice shot there......always goes back to the guys and not what they SHOW. Remember their stuff is available for FREE!?!?! I though we were already addressing what they show. I just pointed out that they are making money off this tradgedy without really doing anything about it except making and selling DVDs. Where is the earth shattering revolution? And 30 bucks a pop!?!?!?!? You can get the latest movie releases for $14 - $20 bucks at Wal-mart. Why pay for something you can get for free? To fund further investigation? What is it that they are doing now? I certainly would not call what they have done so far "investigation".
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


uruk	Aug 23 2008, 02:42 AM Post #305
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Quote: Mr. Edward Paik. The plane flew right over him. Whats your opinion on that? He's wrong? If so, by how much?? If he's wrong, and it was south side, he had one mother of a fucking delusion. Like HUNDREDS of feet from his position delusion??? Like, he's so delusional, he should be in a god damn asylum?? Paik is another part to the "triangulation" thingy I mentioned. He's critical. Terry Morin is another good one.....but let's just stick to Paik for now. Let me know what you come up with. This is gonna be REAL good! Edward Paik points all over the place in his interview video. Also, if you look at Edward's second path drawing ( the one with the picture that was taken from the hotel behind his shop. not the overhead view) You'll see that he clearly draws the path to the south of the CITGO. Ever wonder why Craig and Aldo rarely show that picture? You can find it with google. And it might still be on the Pentacon web site. Craig and Aldo give the wrong position for Morin. Morin says that he was walking out across the driveway coming from between wing 4 and 5 toward the security check point building. That means he was in the middle of the parking lot when the plane flew over him with the edge of the wing traveling parallel to the Annex. That places the plane passing to the south of the CITGO. Look it up. There are pictures taken of the Pentacon from the Annex parking lot. Edited by uruk, Aug 23 2008, 02:43 AM.
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


uruk	Aug 23 2008, 02:49 AM Post #306
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Quote: if it coincided with an explosion, I'm pretty sure the rumble of the jets would not be understood to be a separate incident. not only that, but there would be low flying jets nearby all the time, and no one would ever question it. besides that, if there were witnesses who said they saw a plan come out the other side and climb, you'd just say they remembered incorrectly. you have no standards for evidence. when we come up with an argument that meets your standards, you'll just move the goalposts, so what is the point of debating with you, really? Possibly. But the sound of the jet engine would have lasted longer than the explosion. A plane flying directly over the Pentagon low enough in an attempt to be hidden by a rising fire ball would be highly unusual. Look at the hight of the fire ball in the security checkpoint video. And look at CIT's cg video. Do you know of any plane pasing that low over a building to come in for a landing at an airport that far away?
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


uruk	Aug 23 2008, 03:02 AM Post #307
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Quote: Graeme McQueen There's a lot of talk - on the internet, in the media, etc. -- about how unreliable witnesses are. This sort of evidence is often called "soft" and a lot of people tend to dismiss it. This is bizarre. The whole of the social sciences and humanities depends on the use of human subjects - studying what they do, but also talking to them, exploring what they think, reading what they've said. Now, any good social scientist, philosopher or literary critic can tell you how many fences have to be crossed before you get from human perception to facts about the external world-testimony from human subjects does not give us a transparent window -- but this does not mean eyewitness evidence cannot be used or isn't important. You don't just refuse to look at it, you work out principles of interpretation. I recently read a paper by Charles Regini, an FBI agent, talking about the establishment of Cold Case Homicide Squads in the U.S. These are groups of investigators who try to solve homicide cases that have gone unsolved for at least a year. He concludes, "resolution of nearly all CCS cases still comes from eyewitness identification." To ignore or dismiss eyewitness testimony is absurd. Source. Consider this. ""eyewitness identification evidence" has played a role in about 75 per cent of wrongful convictions overturned through DNA testing." Source: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/449543 Guess what. Physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony.
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


uruk	Aug 23 2008, 03:18 AM Post #308
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Quote: This is a non-answer Uruk, and you know it. If they are 'filling in gaps', how did they all arrive at the NOC path? How does that even begin to explain what Roosevelt Roberts saw? Because they were all on the north side of the Citgo. What about the witnesses that were on the high way and south of the CITGO? What do they say? Quote: All witnesses get things wrong- they aren't FDRs. But as far as what humans can observe and recall, i.e. the general placement of the plane, all the witnesses are in agreement. The ANC witnesses don't say the plane passed 'directly over their heads'. You are right. They all point to the south away from them. That means they saw the plane over the Citgo at a distance. Depth perception is not very good the farther away you are from objects. It would be difficult for them to tell what the distance is between the plane and the CITGO. They may feel they are certain. But try it out for yourself. Quote: Of course, the plane could not be hidden from everyone- Roosevelt saw it afterall. The plan was simply to cover their tracks with the C130 and E4B to confuse anyone who saw the plane. From there cognitive dissonance, priming, and the status quo bias would take over (which isn't to say that there aren't more flyover witnesses). Roosvelt clearly says that he saw the plane flying over lane one of the south parking lot 10 seconds after he heard the explosion. (I listend to it twice and read a transcript of the interview to be sure) Are you telling me that the plane took 10 seconds to get from the point of explosion on the pentagon to over the parking lot? The plane was traveling pretty fast and the parking lot is not that far away from the Pentagon. It would be kind a pointless to send another plane over the Pentagon 10 seconds after the explosion. I seriously doubt that would fool anyone. The fire ball would have been dissipated well within 10 seconds. Quote: A. K. Dewdney is a mathematician and computer scientist who lives in London, Ontario, Canada. <www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/> G. W. Longspaugh is an aerospace engineer who makes his home in Fort Worth, Texas, USA. And what is thier experiance with plane crashes? Carl Sagan once said. "Being really smart is no guarantee of being absolutly wrong." Edited by uruk, Aug 23 2008, 03:22 AM.
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


22205	Aug 23 2008, 05:38 AM Post #309
Arlingtonian Posts: 259 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: 01/14/08	http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=126887&t=297723 uruk This is probably why Craig and Aldo are here for. http://shop.thepentacon.com/main.sc;jsessionid=288C9A4309950845DF89DBF2F8240CA6.qscstrfrnt04 http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=1046 thats chump-change compared to the kind of money these guys are asking for: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/42/36/ cliking here: opens this: cliking here: opens this: nowhere to clik for this one, i guess you'll have to call: now i would show you who some of the donors are, but very recently: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118842&highlight=forum+donor footnote - 2006 James Randi Educational Foundation Inc. 990 form (financial statements): http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_200612_990.pdf how to read a 990: http://www.npccny.org/Form_990/990.htm how about some more "marketing" and mo' money-making opportunities from/for the randi non-profit org.: cit are not in it for money, but the jref? im not so sure. i do know there is very little money to be made from the truth CIT have uncovered (and offerred to the public for free). so little that neither of them is quitting their dayjons yet. so u can go fuk yourself chubbz. you just spent your entire friday night typing out useless drivel, and sadly for you - all of it was in vain. people can tell their left from their right and their fronts from their backs. this "tainted memory" bullshit you keep repeating is beyond old now anthony (even the other skeptics are abandoning it). even from the very start when u presented such pseudo-logic uruk, it had little credence. but now - months later, its not only WEAK, but transparent as well. it shows how biased your logic and your thinking really is. you have been refuted point by point repeatedly, and you still refuse to accept that grown men are NOT kindergarteners when it comes to knowing and remembering direction. here is a test for you uruk: in the following pic, if you are the guy circled in the middle, then which letter is on your left? and which letter is on your right? can you tell? are you sure? why should we trust that you know your right vs your left? and at which bigNtall men's shop can i purchase that sexy shirt? * bitterman, please stop feeding this troll. if he is so convinced, then good for him. if he's so convinced, then let him claim victory and be done with it. if he thinks he is capable of convincing anyone else with his attempts at sounding more educated than he really is by using big words that he keeps mis-spelling, then let him. pity him, loathe him, but dont indulge him. think of him as BROKEN: like bret08, or like a record that keeps skipping, or like a head-trauma victim who isnt quite right in the noggin anymore. let this pseudoskeptic keep wasting his time trying to prove TO HIMSELF that what he says is true. but dont waste your own time nor give this man's rantings any merit by trying to argue with him. let him get the last word, so he can celebrate. but his musings have NO bearing on the truth of what the witnesses saw and the implications of such, no matter how many times he says what he has to say.



SPreston	Aug 23 2008, 07:56 AM Post #310
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	22205 thats chump-change compared to the kind of money these guys are asking for: Geeze. All that expense just to belong to a bunch of frauds and professional illusionists. 22205 bitterman, please stop feeding this troll. if he is so convinced, then good for him. if he's so convinced, then let him claim victory and be done with it. if he thinks he is capable of convincing anyone else with his attempts at sounding more educated than he really is by using big words that he keeps mis-spelling, then let him. pity him, loathe him, but dont indulge him. think of him as BROKEN: like bret08, or like a record that keeps skipping, or like a head-trauma victim who isnt quite right in the noggin anymore. let this pseudoskeptic keep wasting his time trying to prove TO HIMSELF that what he says is true. but dont waste your own time nor give this man's rantings any merit by trying to argue with him. let him get the last word, so he can celebrate. but his musings have NO bearing on the truth of what the witnesses saw and the implications of such, no matter how many times he says what he has to say. I agree. Let's stop feeding this 'government loyalist' uruk troll.



uruk	Aug 23 2008, 06:22 PM Post #311
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Quote: cit are not in it for money, but the jref? im not so sure. i do know there is very little money to be made from the truth CIT have uncovered (and offerred to the public for free). so little that neither of them is quitting their day ons yet. so u can go fuk yourself chubbz. The JREF is an educational foundation that provides scholarships to people. It has employees that operate the foundation full time. It also has the JREF challenge in which they offer one million dollars to anyone who can prove they a paranormal ability. And that is just a small portion of what they do. Read the web site further. James Randi's organization does quite alot. I've noticed you posted alot of the events and activities the JREF produces. (And reguarding some of the guest speaker events you posted, it is the speaker who is making most of that addmission fee money.) What does the CIT do? Quote: you just spent your entire friday night typing out useless drivel, and sadly for you - all of it was in vain. people can tell their left from their right and their fronts from their backs. this "tainted memory" bullshit you keep repeating is beyond old now anthony (even the other skeptics are abandoning it). even from the very start when u presented such pseudo-logic uruk, it had little credence. but now - months later, its not only WEAK, but transparent as well. it shows how biased your logic and your thinking really is. you have been refuted point by point repeatedly, and you still refuse to accept that grown men are NOT kindergarteners when it comes to knowing and remembering direction. If so. you've spent quite a bit of time responding to my posts. You also spent quite a bit of time looking up information about me. I'm flattered. A little creeped out in a stalker victim kinda way, but flattered none the less. Quote: here is a test for you uruk: in the following pic, if you are the guy circled in the middle, Hey cool! I forgot about that picture. That picture was a promotional for an album we recorded. I played bass and ran the recording studio for the sessions. It was alot of fun. I had great time. Those guys are really exceptional musicians. Especially the ladies in the picture. Thanks for bringing back some great memories. Quote: then which letter is on your left? and which letter is on your right? can you tell? are you sure? why should we trust that you know your right vs your left? Depends on what your frame of reference is. My left and right from the perspective of the photographer or my left and right from my perspective. You have mention your refrence points. Quote: and at which bigNtall men's shop can i purchase that sexy shirt? That shirt I bought from Wal-mart. I usually shop at Big Dogs. Quote: bitterman, please stop feeding this troll. if he is so convinced, then good for him. if he's so convinced, then let him claim victory and be done with it. if he thinks he is capable of convincing anyone else with his attempts at sounding more educated than he really is by using big words that he keeps mis-spelling, then let him. pity him, loathe him, but dont indulge him. think of him as BROKEN: like bret08, or like a record that keeps skipping, or like a head-trauma victim who isnt quite right in the noggin anymore. let this pseudoskeptic keep wasting his time trying to prove TO HIMSELF that what he says is true. but dont waste your own time nor give this man's rantings any merit by trying to argue with him. let him get the last word, so he can celebrate. but his musings have NO bearing on the truth of what the witnesses saw and the implications of such, no matter how many times he says what he has to say. Awww, giving up already? Edited by uruk, Aug 23 2008, 11:43 PM.
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


uruk	Aug 23 2008, 11:56 PM Post #312
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Oh and here is a nice one I saw looking at the commotion over at OCweekly http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news So what is she? a dis-info agent?
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


C.H.	Aug 24 2008, 01:22 AM Post #313
Posts: 38 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08	22205 here is a test for you uruk: in the following pic, if you are the guy circled in the middle, then which letter is on your left? and which letter is on your right? can you tell? are you sure? why should we trust that you know your right vs your left? Clearly he started dressing up in a Santa hat playing electric bass with a bunch of JREFers so fast his conscious mind couldn't process it all at that instant. This kind of thing probably traumatized him as well and according to Mangoose, he would percieve A and Z both closer than actually were.
Posts: 38 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08


C.H.	Aug 24 2008, 01:34 AM Post #314
Posts: 38 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08	BTW, 25K to "meet James Randi to discuss interests"? What exactly does "discuss interests" mean? Might it mean "make the JREF go in the direction that is in the 'best interest' of the donor"? This is apparently why Beachnut is exempt from forum rules- wouldn't want to anger your cash cow, would ya Randi?
Posts: 38 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08


uruk	Aug 24 2008, 05:15 PM Post #315
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Quote: BTW, 25K to "meet James Randi to discuss interests"? What exactly does "discuss interests" mean? Might it mean "make the JREF go in the direction that is in the 'best interest' of the donor"? This is apparently why Beachnut is exempt from forum rules- wouldn't want to anger your cash cow, would ya Randi? Like I said, the JREF is a legitimate organisation that gives back to the community in scholarships and educational awareness events. They organize meeting and seminars and events. The JREF also has employees to support and provide healthcare insurance. Randi and his foundation walk the talk. They are out there doing what they say they are doing. Randi also does the guest speaker circuit. He also promotes the books that he writes. Take a look at what other guests speaker charge. The average fee for the inspirational speakers we hire at the college for our professional development meetings is about 10 to 20k. That's an extremely weak innuendo. If that was the case don't you think that people like Sylvia Brown and the like, who could easily afford 25 thousand dollars many times over, would want to disscuss thier "best interests" with Randi? Has the JREF changed thier stance on mediums and psychics? JREF is above board on what they do with the money they ask for. Again, What does the CIT do? Edited by uruk, Aug 25 2008, 09:30 PM.
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


uruk	Aug 24 2008, 06:07 PM Post #316
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	Here is some info about witness memory. Read it if want or not, but what I say about memory is not BS. http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110291/purposes/autobio/eyewitness.php "How can a witness be sure of what happened? How can the police or the jury judge the accuracy of the memory? Unfortunately, research shows that the confidence of the witness in their memory has no relationship to the actual accuracy. (Benjamin, Hopkins, & Nation, 1994 p.275)(Wells & Murray, 1984) ( Benjamin, Hopkins, & Nation, 1994.p.277)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification "It is thought that memory degrades over time, some researchers state that the rate at which eyewitness memory declines is swift, and the drop-off is sharp, in contrast to the more common view that memory degrades slowly and consistently as time passes. The "forgetting curve" of eyewitness memory has been shown to be "Ebbinghausian" in nature: it begins to drop off sharply within 20 minutes following the initial encoding, and continues to do so exponentially until it begins to level off around the second day at a dramatically reduced level of accuracy.[31]. And as noted above, eyewitness memory is increasingly susceptible to contamination as time passes.[32]" http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf "Recent cases in which DNA evidence has been used to exonerate individuals convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitness testimony have shown us that eyewitness evidence is not infallible. Even the most honest and objective people can make mistakes in recalling and interpreting a witnessed event; it is the nature of human memory." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040604031621.htm "Eyewitness Memory Poor In Highly Intense And Stressful Situations" http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm "Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories." That study also shows how the manner in which just asking a wittness for thier testmony can affect thier recollection. And there is CIT's fatal flaw. They treat eyewitness testimony as the unadulterated, 100% accurate truth and they measure everything by it. Science clearly shows that it is not the case.
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


Bitterman	Aug 29 2008, 07:46 PM Post #317
Posts: 284 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Uruk, stfu. Tackle some facts and maybe these posts of yours would be AS ridiculous as they already are.....
Posts: 284 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


uruk	Aug 31 2008, 11:10 PM Post #318
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08	I think you need to read the post you just made. You may have left out a word or two. I've backed up my statements. You can check them out yourself. I have shown how unreliable human memory can be. I have shown how physical evidence is superior to witness testimony in a court of law. Look it up yourself. I've given you the sources. Look for sources that say otherwise.
Posts: 187 Group: Skeptics Member #488 Joined: 04/10/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
12
13