"Bandwagon effect, invented by Conal Sherry, also known as "cromo effect" and closely related to opportunism, is the observation that people often do and believe things because many other people do and believe the same things. The effect is often called herd instinct. People tend to follow the crowd without examining the merits of a particular thing. The bandwagon effect is the reason for the bandwagon fallacy's success." - SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwago...
"The name "bandwagon fallacy" comes from the phrase "jump on the bandwagon" or "climb on the bandwagon", a bandwagon being a wagon big enough to hold a band of musicians. In past political campaigns, candidates would ride a bandwagon through town, and people would show support for the candidate by climbing aboard the wagon. The phrase has come to refer to joining a cause because of its popularity." - SOURCE: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn....
"Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence. In England, the Criminal Law Review Committee, writing in 1971, stated that cases of mistaken identification "constitute by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions". Yet despite substantial anecdotal and scientific support for the proposition that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, it is held in high regard by jurors in criminal trials, even when "far outweighed by evidence of innocence." In the words of former US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, there is "nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!'" - SOURCES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitne... http://innocenceproject.org/understan...
Criminal Law Review Committee Eleventh Report, Cmnd 4991
Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness Evidence 9 (1979).
Watkins v. Souders, 449 U.S. 341, 352 (1982) (Brennan, J. dissenting).
The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
a talk by
Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology
and
George Fisher, Professor of Law
Laura Engelhardt
"Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses. For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible "assistance" from others in the formation of their present memories." - SOURCES: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%... http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%...
This video contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
"Beyond Admissibility: A Practical Look at the Use of Eyewitness Expert Testimony in the Federal Courts"
by Jennifer L. Overbeck
"Jurors are strongly inclined to believe eyewitnesses, even in the face of other contradictory evidence, such as fingerprints. However, thirty years of psychological research into the workings of human memory have revealed that eyewitness accounts are frequently flawed, either because the witness’s original perception of the event was flawed, or because the memory was subconsciously altered prior to testifying at trial. This, combined with jurors’ inclination to trust eyewitnesses, leads juries to overcredit eyewitness testimony, resulting in false convictions."
"In the 1970s, psychological experts discovered substantial and controversial evidence regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. This evidence indicates that this testimony is frequently inaccurate and, perhaps more importantly, that juries overestimate eyewitness accuracy. In response to this problem, defense attorneys frequently offer—and judges sometimes allow—expert psychological testimony to assist the jury in assessing eyewitness credibility. These experts explain to the jury the potential fallibility of eyewitness identification, in the hope that this information will balance the jury’s tendency to 'overbelieve' eyewitnesses."
"Many factors contribute to false convictions, but one of the most prominent is inaccurate eyewitness identification. In recent years, DNA testing has thrown some light on how frequently mistaken identification actually occurs. In more than two-thirds of the exoneration cases to date, conviction was based at least in part on faulty eyewitness identifications."
"One factor that can influence eyewitness accuracy is the simple passage of time. Memory does not diminish at a uniform rate. Rather, we forget at a rapid rate immediately following an event, and the rate of forgetting then diminishes over time. This is called the 'forgetting curve.' Thus, even if an eyewitness testifies shortly after an event, her memory may already be substantially diminished."
"For example, suggesting a fact, such as the presence of a stop sign at the scene of an accident, greatly increases a witness’s chances of remembering it, whether it was there or not. If witnesses encounter additional information that conflicts with their memory of an event, and therefore cannot be easily assimilated into the existing memory, they will compromise between the new information and the information they remember, creating a new memory. Sometimes compromise is impossible, such as when a witness sees a stop sign but is later told it was a yield sign. Witnesses will then frequently 'adjust' their memories to be consistent with the subsequent information, rather than with what they originally perceived."
"In one experiment, witnesses saw a car accident in which one car drove through a stop sign. Half of the witnesses were asked, 'How fast was car A going when it ran the stop sign?' Of these witnesses, fifty-three percent later recalled seeing a stop sign. The other half of the witnesses were asked, 'How fast was car A going when it turned right?' Only thirty-five percent of these witnesses later remembered seeing a stop sign. Simply mentioning the stop sign greatly increased the likelihood that the witness would remember it."
"For example, when witnesses saw a group of eight demonstrators, and later read that there were either twelve or four demonstrators, the witnesses adjusted their memories accordingly. The witnesses who read that there were twelve demonstrators subsequently recalled an average of 8.9 people. The witnesses who read that there were four demonstrators recalled 6.4 people."
"Stress can affect a witness’s original perception of an event as well as her subsequent recall of the event. Stress and other forms of emotional provocation can improve perception to some extent, but when stress levels get too high, they can impair a witness’s ability to assess the situation accurately. Violence is one major factor that causes stress for eyewitnesses of crimes, particularly victims. Researchers have found that both men and women recall violent events with much less accuracy than non-violent ones. The presence of a weapon further undermines a witness’s ability to remember events. Witnesses focus on the weapon more frequently and for longer periods than other objects in the scene. This phenomenon is called 'weapon focus.' As a result of weapon focus, witnesses spend less time focusing on other details of the crime, including the appearance of the assailant. This may result in less accurate eyewitness identifications."
"Common sense may suggest that the more confident a witness is, the more likely it is that her memory is accurate. However, psychological research has shown little or no correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy. In some studies, researchers asked eyewitnesses how confident they were in their ability to make a positive identification before viewing a lineup. This pre-identification confidence proved to be a poor predictor of the witnesses’s actual ability to identify the correct suspect in the lineup. Other studies asked eyewitnesses about their confidence levels after they had viewed a lineup and made an identification. The correlation between post-identification confidence and accuracy was only slightly higher than that for pre-identification confidence. Some studies have shown no relationship at all between confidence and accuracy, and some even suggest a negative correlation—that witnesses can be more confident when they are inaccurate than when they are accurate."
"Taken together, this research indicates that although juries often consider eyewitness confidence in weighing credibility, confidence is an unreliable indicator of accuracy, and can be influenced by factors bearing no relation to the accuracy of a witness’s identification."
I'd seen the memory test before but it never ceases to fascinate me. The CIT witnesses themselves make mistakes all the time in their testimony (i.e; Lagasse's infamous misplacement of the taxi cab and light poles), so how such testimony can be put in higher regard than physical evidence is beyond my understanding. _________________ http://arcterus911.blogspot.com
Joined: 12 Aug 2007 Posts: 28 Location: Greeley Colorado
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject: A chat on Facebook between me & a CIT supporter
I normally don't engage people at all, but I always liked this person. I came across him on Facebook and he had some nice words to say to me in the past, and vice versa. He certainly has the credentials in the media world and I respected the fact that he was publicly questioning 9-11, at least on his Facebook page. I still respect this person, but I found this a bit weird so I wanted to get folks' thoughts on this exchange copied and pasted from Facebook.
This is in response to my posting of this new video on my Facebook page-
Facebook friend-
Elinoff disagrees with CIT's analysis, but doesn't really say why, other than to say that eyewitness testimony is unreliable (which presumably would also apply to witnesses reporting a south-of-CITGO approach).. does he have any other points to contribute to the discussion?
Michael Wolsey
Jonathan does also say here that he disagrees with promoting speculation as "fact" or "proven", an important point IMO. And to answer your question, yes, he does have a lot more to say, however, fitting everything Jonathan had to say into a little over 10 minutes was beyond the scope of what we wanted to say in this video. I have 30+ minutes of Jonathan telling his story and we may publish more in the future.
Facebook friend-
Given that no video of what happened at the Pentagon has ever been released, and there are - without a doubt - widespread concerns within the movement about how little wreckage was found/planted, the size of the hole, the discordant FDR data, etc. etc., I would also disagree with promoting unfounded speculation - i.e., that a 757 (and specifically ... Read MoreFlight AA77) hit the Pentagon, leaving no room for doubt about any other possibility, but there is obviously a subset of the movement that is firmly committed to supporting that part of the official story and attacking all who disagree... strange
Michael Wolsey
As I have said before [name deleted], we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one. I have reviewed both sides very carefully for years and come to a different conclusion. For what it is worth to you my friend, I once believed that there was no plane at the Pentagon. However, when I looked closer, I got a different picture of what probably... Read More happened there...And the no plane crowd were very obviously dishonest at many junctures. The case of Mike Walter is a perfect example where his words were dishonestly used to imply that a missile hit the Pentagon. The myth of the 9' of steel reinforced concrete is another example of misinformation that is still promoted to this day.
Facebook friend-
What's your best guess as to why the video hasn't been released then?
Facebook friend-
And why is it not possible to respectfully agree to disagree with the CIT folks, instead of continually spending time making radio programs and videos designed to discredit them? Do you really think that's the best use of your time, given all the other questions facing us?
(These last two comments by this Facebook friend I didn't even get a chance to respond to because he then picked it up on a repeat of the posting that was brought in on rss to my facebook page beginning below)
Facebook friend-
If eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, does that criticism also not apply to ALL eyewitnesses - not just those who said they saw the plane north of the CITGO? If one wants to be logically consistent, you have to throw out ALL of the eyewitness testimony on these grounds, no?
Facebook friend-
Unless, of course, one wants to be *illogical* and *inconsistent*, and in that case, you can use and discard whatever witness testimony suits you, I guess...
Michael Wolsey
We agree on this. If the eyewitness are in conflict, as they so often are, clearly they cannot be used as evidence to "prove" something. Whether you agree with me or not, I believe you have just helped me make my point. By discarding all the other Pentagon witnesses, cit has done what you imply, and I agree, is "illogical" and "inconsistent". One of the main criticisms of cit is indeed their selective use of eyewitnesses to "prove" their fly over theory.
Facebook friend-
So if we agree not to use any witness testimony at all - including CIT's, but also including Mike Walter, and all the south-of-CITGO witnesses - what does that leave us?
Michael Wolsey
I would submit it leaves the physical damage including the 5 downed light poles, the damaged generator, the damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon which extended nearly 90 ft and corresponded to the stouter portion of the aircraft between the engines, the portion of the building which later collapsed because the supporting structure beneath had ... Read Morebeen taken out, photos of aircraft wreckage (yes they do exist, cit alleges it was all planted) along with other tightly controlled information which has been released by elements within the government itself, including the FDR, the DNA identifications of the victims, the FAA recordings of the air traffic controllers, the radar data (or lack thereof), the testimony of Norman Minetta before the 9-11 commission about Cheney's infamous conversation with the young man in the bunker who asked "do the orders still stand?", the fact that nothing should have hit the building in the first place....did I leave anything out?
Facebook friend-
All very interesting, but in the absence of witness testimony, there is nothing in that list that specifically proves a
*757* hit the pentagon, is there? We don't know where the passenger DNA was actually collected from; the air traffic controllers had no way of knowing that they were following a 757, let alone AA77, in the absence of a ... Read Moretransponder signal; the damage you cite could have been caused by any number of things; the Mineta-Cheney exchange has no bearing on the type of object that actually struck the Pentagon, etc. etc.. Unless, that is, you are placing your faith in evidence for which the sole source is the U.S. government? If that's the case, you ought to believe the NIST WTC report, right? I have never understood why people who totally distrust the government account of the WTC events bend over backwards to defend the government's account of the Pentagon event, and attack contrary evidence, the very same type of which they readily accept in the New York context..
Michael Wolsey
I am not bending over backwards to defend anything except that there is a lot which brings what you say about "no plane" at the Pentagon into dispute. You asked me what we have left if we throw out the witnesses. I gave it to you and it's disingenuous to imply that I am "bend[ing] over backwards to defend the government's account".
I ve long ... Read Moreadvocated that the "tightly controlled" information released by the government cannot be trusted. If you knew anything about my stance on this issue you would know that I have steered clear of this issue because of the disinformation and misinformation that is so abundant. It has only been recently that I have spoken out and I have no shame.
I am sorry you appear to have such a problem with me using my voice to express my opinion. You can either listen or not, same as anyone. I speak for a lot of people when I make the claim that we must use the best information we have to present to the public or risk being discredited.
Michael Wolsey
If that makes me the bad guy here, then so be it.
Facebook friend-
Maybe your multiple posts, programs and videos aren't "bending over backwards", but there seems to be a lot energy directed towards anyone - including CIT - who questions whether a 757 hit the Pentagon, and many respected 9/11 truthers refuse to declare exactly what happened there, in the absence of more information - which is my position. Getting ... Read Moremore information, it seems to me, is precisely why CIT travelled to the area to do some independent (i.e. non-government, non-corporate media) investigation. I am happy to believe, as are many others, that a 757, maybe even AA77, hit the Pentagon, and I also speak for a lot of people in saying that such irrefutable evidence has yet to be presented, and the witnesses (and other evidence) that CIT has gathered certainly raise questions about the official story. The language and arguments that seek to discredit CIT's work have the all-too-familiar characteristics of standard debunking (i.e. OCT) rhetoric, which makes me deeply uncomfortable..
Facebook friend-
You write: " the "tightly controlled" information released by the government cannot be trusted" - and yet when I ask you for remaining evidence for a 757 impact, you cite a bunch of government evidence (DNA analysis, flight data recorder, radar data, etc..)
You wrote: "You asked me what we have left if we throw out the witnesses. I gave it to you... Read More" - and I just responded by saying none of that goes to show a 757, or AA77, hit the Pentagon. Of course "we must use the best information we have to present to the public or risk being discredited", but surely we are still allowed to debate unresolved questions amongst ourselves, no?
Of course, I have no problem you using your voice to express your opinion, and you can either listen or not listen to me, same as anyone. But please decide - 'cuz I'm confused - whether you are 100% sure about what hit the Pentagon, and if not, what is served by publicly criticizing those whose suspicions don't exactly match yours? Is this the best use of time?
Michael Wolsey
Is this the best use of my time? At this time, yes.
(at this point a Facebook friend joined in)
Hoz Turner
...looking at the evidence available. What is the strongest hypothesis?
Facebook friend-
There are competing hypotheses, with no clear winner (in my view) at present, but I would call the specific "AA77 (as opposed to any old 757) hit the Pentagon" to be the weakest of the lot, supported by the least amount of solid, independent irrefutable evidence.. unlike some of CIT's critics, I don't claim to know what happened at the Pentagon that day
Have a read through all of that. The physical evidence shows a stronger case for a 757 collision than a fakery or missile.
Facebook friend-
I have already read that, thanks for pointing it out all the same
Facebook friend-
I'll just add that Hoffman paper is over 3 years old, and a great deal of new evidence (including that collected by CIT) has come to light since then, if you're not already familiar with it.. just his construction of a specific "no-Boeing theory" (when there are many competing and sometimes contradicting other theories), and his refusal to regard the official AA77 narrative as another "theory" is highly problematic right off the start, coming from someone who claims to be after the truth
Hoz Turner
So you are claiming that he is ignoring this evidence and has little interest in objective truth except his own research? He has addressed it. Check out his recent interview with Michael Woolsey.
Facebook friend-
I am only claiming what is written above - not your inaccurate paraphrasing of it - and yes, I have listened to that interview and obviously find it most unpersuasive... in fact, I think if we were to sit down and compared the amount of research each of us has done on the Pentagon question, you might be in for a bit of a surprise, and I'll just leave it at that. This was originally a chat between Michael and me, and I have no wish to continue it with anyone else at this time. No offense.
Michael Wolsey
I have no intention of engaging in a circular argument (or letting that happen here) with someone who has already made up their mind about promoting unreliable "evidence" and open speculation. If you must promote cit, please have the respect to take it somewhere else.
Facebook friend-
Not to worry, Michael, I considered your last answer to be the final word. But conversely if you feel you have to promote what many (including some of the most prominent figures in the 9/11 truth movement) consider to be unreliable evidence and open speculation, i.e. that AA77 hit the Pentagon - and duck the many questions I posed during this discussion - you can expect lots more of this from other people, so better get used to it... I'll be signing off now
Michael Wolsey
I think for myself and well, groupthink was never one of my strong suits.
**END
Thoughts??? Analysis??? I am still somewhat naive to this kind of circular logic, mostly because I have never sat and answered to someone who I respect, push something ridiculous and have to go back and forth with him. I felt like I was being attacked at times. Perhaps this is a strong argument NOT to engage someone who obviously has his mind made up. I knew this prior to this exchange with this Facebook friend because of previous comments he had made about my facebook postings. However, I was a bit caught off guard by what I saw from him. Anyone else?
Last edited by Visibility 9-11 on Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 07 Apr 2007 Posts: 394 Location: Sydney Australia
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:32 am Post subject: Hi Michael...
The main thing seems to be...that the no Boeing at the Pentagon advocates see us as supporting the government account?
The reality is that we are stating that it is the government "theory"(account) that has the most evidence...so consequently we must present it as a counter to the CIT flyover which unfortunately puts us with the perpertrators in many peoples eyes.
I am beginning to understand the dangerous nature of these sorts of situations in our movement and why the P4T Rob Balsamo keeps saying that only questioning the governments account is valid during our research. That I think makes it all very clear...for in scientific research this is a completely flawed approach and only has one justification in my view; that being to force a dogma of no Boeing hit the Pentagon without him ever saying so....very smart way to cause trouble?
It is also interesting to note that "the no position on anything" P4T have this recurring theme that all the official explanations are false and any that support the governments story are dis info? No Planes at the WTC for one example.
Kind regards John _________________ WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!
Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 331 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:39 am Post subject:
re: the stop sign witnesses experiment- reminded me this fun 15 second video- group of kids is moving around passing 2 basketballs back and forth; watch close and count how many times the balls are passed. Then, watch the video again, just watching the action.
http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php
imho, if someone wants to reserve judgment on WHAT hit the Pentagon and promote the wealth of strong evidence the OCT is a lie, fine; after all, the videos and many photos have not been released, and there's been no real investigation.
I do have a problem with people, like CIT and all the '757 didn't hit' absolutists before them, claiming that their eyewitnesses- which conflict with more numerous other witness accounts and some of which are inconsistent with themselves or a N path- constitute 'conclusive proof'.
EDIT: name correction
On top of that, the '757 didn't hit' claims require omitting the wealth of evidence Michael cited, which [Facebook Friend] casually dismissed, or believing that it was faked, and that the real perps would go to the trouble of doing so, when they could simply fly AA 77 into the Pentagon.
[Facebook Friend] claims to have 'seen' Hoffman's physical evidence article, but casts aspersions on Hoffman and sticks up for CIT. He claims to be suspending judgment in the absence of hard evidence one way or the other, but essentially accuses Michael of promoting the OCT- if AA 77 hit, as much evidence indicates, then why say it didn't, if truth is the goal?
And as there's no evidence it didn't, why pretend it's an example of how the OCT is a lie? [Facebook Friend] asks why the videos haven't been released; why would they release them? The '757 didn't hit' campaign has divided and distracted the 9/11 Truth Movement! They're not even being investigated for illegal wars, warrantless spying and torture, and they use the MSM to paint skeptics as nut jobs. _________________ http://911reports.com/ http://www.historycommons.org
Last edited by Rancho Truth on Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Aug 2007 Posts: 28 Location: Greeley Colorado
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:15 am Post subject: Clarification
Hoz Turner is a different person than the facebook friend who is unidentified and who was disagreeing with me about cit. Hoz is actually in agreement with me about cit.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
