We are making great progress discussing/analyzing all of the published witness accounts in TAM's thread which is ultimately proving the point that I made in this thread about Gravy's Pentagon witness blog pushing incorrect information.
When it comes down to it; the published accounts are finite, static, and unconfirmed for the most part except the ones that CIT has interviewed.
None of these unconfirmed accounts can accurately be considered valid evidence because all of them remain subject to misinterpretation and worse yet misreporting. In essence they can not be accepted out of hand as factual because they remain hearsay until we hear from the witness first hand.
Certainly anyone can confirm previously published accounts and report with first hand testimony but we are the only ones who have bothered.
The reality and the irony of this discussion is that the tendency of the members in this forum (who are supposed to be critical thinkers) is to DISMISS the confirmed independently corroborated accounts of the witnesses in The PentaCon out of hand (which as first hand testimony is valid evidence) while accepting all of the unconfirmed previously published accounts out of hand (which is hearsay and therefore not valid evidence).
Surely the true critical thinkers in this forum will understand how this is not indicative of scientific thinking.
I would like to use this thread to discuss the fallibility of witness accounts and the typical scientific process involved with determining what details are accurate and what are not.
This is a job that must be done every day by investigators, police officers, and of course regular citizens as we fulfill our civic duty as jurors.
Clearly witnesses are almost never 100% correct so the best scientific method used to find accurate details is to determine which details can be independently corroborated.
Agreed?
pomeroo created an EXCELLENT analogy that describes a very likely scenario that we might expect when in a position to scrutinize accounts from genuine yet of course fallible witnesses.
I request that everyone who participates in this thread first directly replies to his analogy and then to my version of it as applies to the citgo witnesses.
pomeroo:
We did not try to hide when they were incorrect about details or to misrepresent/twist their claims in any way.
The fact that they stand by their testimony and our presentation of it to this day supports this.
But the fact is that the specific detail of the plane on the north side was unanimously corroborated by all of them and has not been directly refuted by ANY of the unconfirmed previously published accounts either.
If you are able to let go of your bias and hypothetically look at the citgo witness accounts without considering the incredible implications of their testimony you will understand how critical thinkers can only conclude from the true eyewitness evidence that the independently verified north side claim is accurate.
When it comes down to it; the published accounts are finite, static, and unconfirmed for the most part except the ones that CIT has interviewed.
None of these unconfirmed accounts can accurately be considered valid evidence because all of them remain subject to misinterpretation and worse yet misreporting. In essence they can not be accepted out of hand as factual because they remain hearsay until we hear from the witness first hand.
Certainly anyone can confirm previously published accounts and report with first hand testimony but we are the only ones who have bothered.
The reality and the irony of this discussion is that the tendency of the members in this forum (who are supposed to be critical thinkers) is to DISMISS the confirmed independently corroborated accounts of the witnesses in The PentaCon out of hand (which as first hand testimony is valid evidence) while accepting all of the unconfirmed previously published accounts out of hand (which is hearsay and therefore not valid evidence).
Surely the true critical thinkers in this forum will understand how this is not indicative of scientific thinking.
I would like to use this thread to discuss the fallibility of witness accounts and the typical scientific process involved with determining what details are accurate and what are not.
This is a job that must be done every day by investigators, police officers, and of course regular citizens as we fulfill our civic duty as jurors.
Clearly witnesses are almost never 100% correct so the best scientific method used to find accurate details is to determine which details can be independently corroborated.
Agreed?
pomeroo created an EXCELLENT analogy that describes a very likely scenario that we might expect when in a position to scrutinize accounts from genuine yet of course fallible witnesses.
I request that everyone who participates in this thread first directly replies to his analogy and then to my version of it as applies to the citgo witnesses.
pomeroo:
Same analogy as it applies to the citgo witnesses:
CIT has never claimed that the citgo witnesses are infallible.
We did not try to hide when they were incorrect about details or to misrepresent/twist their claims in any way.
The fact that they stand by their testimony and our presentation of it to this day supports this.
But the fact is that the specific detail of the plane on the north side was unanimously corroborated by all of them and has not been directly refuted by ANY of the unconfirmed previously published accounts either.
If you are able to let go of your bias and hypothetically look at the citgo witness accounts without considering the incredible implications of their testimony you will understand how critical thinkers can only conclude from the true eyewitness evidence that the independently verified north side claim is accurate.
Last edited:
