What the CIT should learn from the light poles

[Drs_Res]

Over in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110073&page=19
starting around post #753 we were introduced to this thread over on the CIT board: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=144&st=105

While it is true that Craig finally admitted to being incorrect (after threatening to ban someone trying to educate him) and he apologized to the people who pointed out his mistake and corrected him, I think that one of the biggest lessons that he and the CIT could have learned from this has been lost.

What is that lesson? Eyewitness testimony and memory are not reliable. Something that we keep trying to point out to them.

Here we have a member of the CIT swearing that he had the poles numbered correctly.

I'll do some quoting here:

Link to CIT Post

QUOTE (bobloblaw @ Jun 15 2008, 02:24 AM)

This seriously damages your credibility.


No it does not because I am right and you are wrong.

Are you REALLY still suggesting I mislabeled pole 1?

I have driven by that pole dozens of times.

I have images of it from every angle possible.

I have spent countless hours ruminating over pole 1 and it is IMPOSSIBLE for the pole I labeled to be anything else since it's clear this is the first pole behind the VDOT camera mast.

That's why I labeled the camera mast so much so you would be able to tell this.
SNIP.....

Bolding mine.

Now has has gone by that pole quite often, thinks about it all of the time, has pictures and video, yet he was wrong. He got the position of a stationary object wrong.

Is it possible that someone who only saw an event one time might get something incorrect when asked about years later?

It's something they need to to think about.

 

[bonavada]

These people have so much invested in the NOC/Flyover fantasy to back down at all would be, for them, monumentally disastrous. The difficulty with the minor matter of the pole placement is proof that the denial runs very deep over there. There is ample proof that eye-witness testimony should be treated with great caution, yet they continue to present their ludicrous version of events based on such notoriously unreliable evidence.

It's something they need to to think about.

Yes it is but somehow I have hunch they won't.

BV

 

[kookbreaker]

Wow. Yeah I know he admitted being wrong in the long run but talk about acting like a spoiled brat.