yet you have failed spectacularly to prove such "manipulation" occurred. And fall back on the only toehold you have, witness recollections. Which history and the courts have proven, can be false and artificially induced.
Research has shown that it is relatively easy to introduce false memory. Media coverage or written recollections by other witnesses - if reviewed by a witness - could suggest "facts" to the witness. Witnesses will often discuss the occurrence amongst themselves and false memories can result.
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] Identification by [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]eyewitnesses[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] is not always reliable evidence. The human brain is simply not constructed in such a way as to function as an "instant replay" camera and recorder. Analytical consideration of the psychological dimensions of eyewitness identification has revealed that the dangers from fallible sensory perception and memory and from suggestive influences are, in many cases, overwhelming. The vagaries and fallibility of such identification are well known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken eyewitness identification. [/FONT]
You've completely misunderstood my point. Even if it's been manipulated, the photograph still exists and has some relation to reality, if only to the reality of the process by which it has been manipulated. A personal recollection, on the other hand, can very easily have no basis in reality whatsoever, or be wrong in crucial details for no apparent reason.
They sure can Dave. But lets say we had all known witnesses to the event and they all said the same thing? Then it gets a little harder to dismiss right? You're not so quick to dismiss the fact that all the witnesses saw the plane hit the building are you?
No, but if all the witnesses agreed that the plane hit the building and the physical evidence said otherwise then it would be reasonable to consider the possibility that the witnesses were all mistaken.
But the fallacy that all NoC proponents commit is that the NoC witnesses corroborate each other's accounts. They do not. They describe a wide range of trajectories which disagree with one another by significant amounts. This, combined with the fact that these witness accounts were compiled as a result of biased and highly suggestive questioning by people already convinced of a specific conclusion and interested only in selecting evidence that supported this conclusion, to the extent of actually correcting witnesses' recollections when they contradicted this conclusion, makes their combined testimony virtually worthless in determining the finer details of the event, such as the precise trajectory of the plane.
No, that is NOT what I said. Nice quotemine. Don't put words into my mouth that I did not say.
What I am saying is that you think poles were down NOC. Please provide the evidence for that. ALL photos that show NOC light pole, not ONE shows them down.
All my worldview is that gov'ts kill their own citizens. Thats a historical fact that you all agree with when asked about it directly. So it must be something other than my worldview that led me to my conclusions. Also, there was a couple years after 911 when my worldview was basically in line with the status quo.
The above statement leads me to believe you are too biased to perform a legitimate investigation. Your theory on 9-11 is so much in the abject minority as to be justifiably called ludicrous. Therefore your implication that anybody who looks at the same evidence as you and comes to a different conclusion (and that is pretty much the rest of the world) is some kind of sheep is insulting.
I watched United 93 the other day. Interesting viewing experience. I found I was able to switch back and forth between viewing the movie through a OCTer eyes or Truther eyes. It was much more satisfying to view it through OCTer eyes: having a small, weak supremely evil enemy to crush....how satisfying. Or Truther eyes: being manipulated by a government that claims to be democratic...how horribly unsatisfying.
So all you can do is look at a situation through the eyes of an extremest, one on each opposite side of the spectrum? Dude. Come a little closer to the middle; we don't bite.
ETA: You DO know that your "OCTer" basically means the rest of the world, right?
I'm so sick of hearing that psychobabble about how Truthers need to impose order on the world by inventing conspiracies. I'd say having clear cut good and evil imposes much more order on the world than a world where the good guys are bad.
Well, I'm pretty sick of ideologues lecturing me. I am every bit as intelligent, world aware, compassionate, and objective as you claim to be. Deal with it.
The above statement leads me to believe you are too biased to perform a legitimate investigation. Your theory on 9-11 is so much in the abject minority as to be justifiably called ludicrous. Therefore your implication that anybody who looks at the same evidence as you and comes to a different conclusion (and that is pretty much the rest of the world) is some kind of sheep is insulting.
So all you can do is look at a situation through the eyes of an extremest, one on each opposite side of the spectrum? Dude. Come a little closer to the middle; we don't bite.
I am in the middle. We both agree that governments have historically killed their own citizens right. W ejust disgree on one historical incident...I didn't know i couldn't disgree with you without being labeled an extremist.
Well, I'm pretty sick of ideologues lecturing me. I am every bit as intelligent, world aware, compassionate, and objective as you claim to be. Deal with it.
AW, I asked you a queston. Can't you just give me a straight forward answer? Allow me to answer for you then...you think most of your memories are basically reliable.
AW, I asked you a queston. Can't you just give me a straight forward answer? Allow me to answer for you then...you think most of your memories are basically reliable.
let me give you an example, Many many years ago as a child i was involved with a traumatic incident which involved me getting second degree burns on my right hand. I was seven. That was 48 years ago, All this time i had thought through this incident that I had burned the socks of my best friend who was (I Thought) standing next to me. after over 40 years I recently re-connected with this best friend. Up to this time i would swear it was him who shared this experience. Three months ago I found out it wasn't him as he was asleep at home that morning. it was another childhood friend who lived down the street from me who was standing next to me. How was it possible that I would make this mistake? Do I think he is mistaken and simply doesnt remember? No. I believe this event was so traumatic that I misremembered some of the details. And because this event was so large in my life. I had thought I had every little detail etched in my minds eye. I was WRONG.
It has to do with psychological factors. Each of us thinks the other has some kind of psychological factor which prevents them from seeing the Truth right?
let me give you an example, Many many years ago as a child i was involved with a traumatic incident which involved me getting second degree burns on my right hand. I was seven. That was 48 years ago, All this time i had thought through this incident that I had burned the socks of my best friend who was (I Thought) standing next to me. after over 40 years I recently re-connected with this best friend. Up to this time i would swear it was him who shared this experience. Three months ago I found out it wasn't him as he was asleep at home that morning. it was another childhood friend who lived down the street from me who was standing next to me. How was it possible that I would make this mistake? Do I think he is mistaken and simply doesnt remember? No. I believe this event was so traumatic that I misremembered some of the details. And because this event was so large in my life. I had thought I had every little detail etched in my minds eye. I was WRONG.
AW, I completely agree with you that memories are fallible. My question wasn't do you have memories which are wrong. My question was do you generally think your memories are accurate?
Hmmm, did you pose the question this way consciously leaving out the obvious 3rd option, or do you really think this way?
Options:
1) Every memory is wrong
2) Most are basically correct
3) Some are wrong
Even choice 2 is a roundabout recognition that memory is not infallible. But what you seem to believe (or what you are proposing) is that only the most trivial details of memory may be incorrect, and the rest are always correct.
In any case, it's not a very subtle approach to logic nor understanding complex systems and events.
Here's a fun experiment which explore the subject:
Keep in mind that suggestions can alter memory to a certain degree; compounding that problem is the time interval between the event in question and the eyewitness giving the account. (Lloyd England comes to mind)
That's why, for me, the general eyewitness info regarding the pentagon crash (noise of engines, general direction of flight and low altitude, collisions with lamp posts and objects on the ground in front of the pentagon, and the face which it impacted) when corroborated by the physical evidence, FDR and radar tracks, give an accurate description of the trajectory of the aircraft.
The idea that CIT insist on a different flight path, and in fact deny an impact cannot change the other evidence, nor negate it. The idea that Lloyd England is correct, and that the photographic evidence has been manipulated similarly does not change the other evidence; and indeed you have demonstrated that your measuring technique is incorrect, so all you really have are Lloyd's contradictions.
In other words, what you have is another rather trivial example of mistakes in eyewitness testimony. The real problem here is your terrible disrespect for other people, your biased approach, and your lack of skills in the areas you're researching.
I suggest you stop with the wild accusations and start learning. You're getting nowhere with your current approach.
AW, I completely agree with you that memories are fallible. My question wasn't do you have memories which are wrong. My question was do you generally think your memories are accurate?
I may THINK my memories are accurate, But the older I get I realise as years pass, some of my older memories are inaccurate. While at the same time I have verified that some of my memories are damn near photographic.
It has to do with psychological factors. Each of us thinks the other has some kind of psychological factor which prevents them from seeing the Truth right?
Please stop the 'your position and mine are on equal footing' dance. They are not. Au contraire. You are demonstatebly wrong, and trivially so. That's the difference. Yet, you refuse to see you are wrong. That's when psycology kicks in.
Its because the people that think CIT are right are obviously going to think I'm wrong, and the people that think CIT are wrong generally favor the official flightpath.
Please stop the 'your position and mine are on equal footing' dance. They are not. Au contraire. You are demonstatebly wrong, and trivially so. That's the difference. Yet, you refuse to see you are wrong. That's when psycology kicks in.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
