Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Originally posted by Myendica
I dont know about any of yous, but until a video is released showing the eye witnesses wrong, I will have to take the word of the eyewitnesses and their placement of the plane being on the north side of the citgo.

What is the scientific basis for your belief that eyewitness testimony is accurate, even when corroborated?

Please respond elaborately, with references to the peer reviewed scientific literature.

reply to post by Alfie1


i cant make that judgement. How do you decide? You have an open forum congressional hearing, and invite all experts. Make them swear under oath.

reply to post by Myendica

I dont know about any of yous, but until a video is released showing the eye witnesses wrong, I will have to take the word of the eyewitnesses and their placement of the plane being on the north side of the citgo.

No wait - "the" eye witnesses? Are you implying that all the eye witnesses at or near the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 placed the plane on the "north side of the citgo"? Or are you just talking about some "special" witnesses whose words were captured, in a very dubious manner (please note that to this day the "interviewers" refuse to release the unedited version of any of their videos) by a couple of amateur sleuths with a very bad case of confirmation bias?

Cit placed those witnesses in their location of that day, and that is the best way to recall location..

Says who?

Not being interviewed at a different location by government officials.

Actually the goverment interviews happened shortly after the incident, the joke interviews were conducted 5 years later. All take shortly thereafter at a different location.

I dont get why an investigation by the government, would differ from any other authority investigation, i.e. Police investigating murder..

Because government investigtors are professional?

But the government took little steps to ensure accurate testimony. They just wanted words on paper, not the actual truth.

If the words on the paper are the truth then what's the difference?

reply to post by snowcrash911


when you have a clearly visible landmark, and the difference of north and south are significant, how can you refute?

reply to post by hooper


you are blatantly misinterpreting my statement. I take the eye witness testimony of those who gave their testimony at their exact location during the event as the most accurate testimony. Eye witness testimony is more valid than someone who gives testimony from say, inside an office talking with investigators, especially when dealing with location of specific objects. When you have visual references, it increases your ability to recall. And how is it so? If you are asked to recall something, and how it occured, how can you say its easier to recall by not being at your location during the event. When police do investigations, they will often bring a witness to the scene of the crime.. And the witness will say, "well I stood here, and walked around this tree where I witnessed the crime.". Giving exact details, such as location and placement of landmarks is extremely significant. How you can say its not is, well, poor assesment. I have been a witness to crimes, and such things occur, and do help with the recalling of specific facts in your memory. Your mind does play tricks on you, which is why when I gave testimony at the police station, I wasnt very helpful, but when brought to the location, I was able to be more helpful.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

when you have a clearly visible landmark, and the difference of north and south are significant, how can you refute?

But.... that is not an answer to my question, is it?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

when you have a clearly visible landmark, and the difference of north and south are significant, how can you refute?

But.... that is not an answer to my question, is it?

eye witnss testimony is not often very accurate. What I am saying is, eye wtness testimony is significantly more accurate whe the witness is subjected to his or hers location they were at during the event in question.

[Deleted -- redundant - SC]

Originally posted by Myendica
eye witnss testimony is not often very accurate. What I am saying is, eye wtness testimony is significantly more accurate whe the witness is subjected to his or hers location they were at during the event in question.

I'm sorry, but that is still not an answer to my question. I formulated my question carefully, so please re-read it.

reply to post by snowcrash911


i have a simple question for you. Do you believe every single aspect of the official story? From the smallest detail to the largest? Is there not 1 lil discrepency for you? Eta- I will gladly attempt to provide the "sources" you wish in about 12 hours when I am more equipped to do the research to find it. I do not have the ability to link at the moment. But in the meantime, feel free to answer my question, which luckily for you requires an opinionate response. For now, you guys can enjoy manipulating other members.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

i have a simple question for you. Do you believe every single aspect of the official story? From the smallest detail to the largest? Is there not 1 lil discrepency for you?

That, too, is not an answer to my question. I detect significant trouble for many ATS members to answer questions within the appropriate confinements. Confinements added to avoid the usual "my opinion is fact" back-and-forth, which helps none of us advance the topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's three non-answers in a row. Why not just admit you're wrong and have absolutely no scientific basis for the claims you've made?

reply to post by snowcrash911


settle down there buddy. i know what you are trying to do. And I said I am limited resources. You dont care for real information, just a confrontation.

reply to post by Myendica

you are blatantly misinterpreting my statement.

Just responding to what I read.

I take the eye witness testimony of those who gave their testimony at their exact location during the event as the most accurate testimony.

Even if the "location" stuff is given 5 years after the initial event? How is that more accurate?

Eye witness testimony is more valid than someone who gives testimony from say, inside an office talking with investigators, especially when dealing with location of specific objects.

5 years later?

When you have visual references, it increases your ability to recall.

It can also prejudice your recollection if, in fact, you're not in the same exact spot. 5 years later.

And how is it so? If you are asked to recall something, and how it occured, how can you say its easier to recall by not being at your location during the event.

Because you're not being prejudiced by the surroundings. You are being asked to tell us what you remember, not what you think happened based on where you are standing at that moment. 5 years later.

When police do investigations, they will often bring a witness to the scene of the crime.

Never. Or maybe on TV.

And the witness will say, "well I stood here, and walked around this tree where I witnessed the crime.". Giving exact details, such as location and placement of landmarks is extremely significant. How you can say its not is, well, poor assesment.

Again, the witnesses should be asked what they remember, not what images can be envoked by visiting a particular place.

I have been a witness to crimes, and such things occur, and do help with the recalling of specific facts in your memory.

Are you recalling or imagining?

Your mind does play tricks on you, which is why when I gave testimony at the police station, I wasnt very helpful, but when brought to the location, I was able to be more helpful.

Don't think that happened.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

i have a simple question for you. Do you believe every single aspect of the official story? From the smallest detail to the largest? Is there not 1 lil discrepency for you? Eta- I will gladly attempt to provide the "sources" you wish in about 12 hours when I am more equipped to do the research to find it. I do not have the ability to link at the moment. But in the meantime, feel free to answer my question, which luckily for you requires an opinionate response. For now, you guys can enjoy manipulating other members.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

Ah, I see you've edited your reply to add a few irritated sneers.

When you return in 12 hours, please consider my original question:

What is the scientific basis for your belief that eyewitness testimony is accurate, even when corroborated?

Please respond elaborately, with references to the peer reviewed scientific literature.

This link is your guideline for citing reliable sources.

I trust you understand what is meant by "peer reviewed scientific literature", so that it won't be necessary to explain it to you when you cite (and you probably will) apocryphal, unreliable sources composed by pseudo-scientific, agenda-driven hacks.

Good luck!

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

settle down there buddy. i know what you are trying to do. And I said I am limited resources. You dont care for real information, just a confrontation.

That's rich. Three times I asked you for a response to my question and you had none. Now, apparently, your ignorance is my fault.

reply to post by snowcrash911


thats not an answer to my question. You must not being able to think if you cannot give an opinionated answer to a simple question. How about you give me resources proving that a witness giving testimony in an office provided more detail than a witness who returned to the scene for their testimony. Certainly it will need to be peer reviewed. D you know what that is? Do you know what eye witness testimony is? When was the last time you opened your eyes? As for hooper.. Im guessing you want me to go get the police report from where I gave two eye witness accounts to a crime I witnessed right? And if you all say that eye witness testimony, even if corraborated doesnt mean its accurate, then we might as well say no planes hit the towers right? Or is witness testimony only valid when its millions of people? You cant pick and choose which testimony is worth more, unless you believe the OS huh?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

settle down there buddy. i know what you are trying to do. And I said I am limited resources. You dont care for real information, just a confrontation.

That's rich. Three times I asked you for a response to my question and you had none. Now, apparently, your ignorance is my fault.

it would appear that you are more ignorant. Yawn.. Ur bating hard arent you?

Originally posted by snowcrash911
In any case, P4T's claims that AA 77's RA exceeded tracking capability due to ground speed is false. Tracking capability refers to descent rate, not ground speed.

edit on 28-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

I totally agree. If it used ground speed I'd be dead many times over.... I've used them at low lever for hundreds of hours at speeds up to about Mach 1.2.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

thats not an answer to my question. You must not being able to think if you cannot give an opinionated answer to a simple question. How about you give me resources proving that a witness giving testimony in an office provided more detail than a witness who returned to the scene for their testimony. Certainly it will need to be peer reviewed. D you know what that is? Do you know what eye witness testimony is? When was the last time you opened your eyes?

I was the one who asked you a question, and masking your slew of fact-free non-replies by asking counterquestions doesn't get you an escape hatch, sorry. Moreover, I'm quite sure this incoherent, aimless babble doesn't qualify as a reliable source from the peer reviewed, scientific literature on eyewitness testimony.

So no, your self-styled opinions on eyewitness testimony are wholly without merit, based on fantasy and anecdotal legend, and can be flung out the window as easily as a banana peel for a flyover theorist to slip over.

reply to post by snowcrash911


i never agreed there was a flyover. Just that, someone, regardlss of timeframe between testimony, can give better testimony when placed at the location, than testimony not at location. If you dont agree, thats fine, but courts have many times, just review some cases. Undoubtedly, authorities dont rely on eye witness testimony. They also rely on video. As I said, I believe the testimony of a witness recalling at location, other than testimony not. As do many many many others.. Eta- until video is available showing that the plane was south of citgo, I will take the word of the most reliable witnness I deem fit, that being those put at the scene to recall. Btw.. You arent very civil, which suggests you dont care about truth or "getting to the bottom of things."