Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

So, if i don't agree with 'flawless' logic and proof for alternative explanations im wrong.

My problem with these type of theroies is roughly; don't claim you have the answer that comes about through critical thinking when your thinking is just as blinkered as those who you claim are ignoring the obvious truth.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:So, if i don't agree with 'flawless' logic and proof for alternative explanations im wrong.

My problem with these type of theroies is roughly; don't claim you have the answer that comes about through critical thinking when your thinking is just as blinkered as those who you claim are ignoring the obvious truth.

no, far from it, as i said im very open minded.

it just comes across as though you are trying to be-little me.

i am not saying anybody is wrong or right, i was just asking to compare the given evidence, to some that was not given and just see if it adds up.

im not trying to make anyone beleive anything, but in this world you can over-complicate things and not notice something when in smacks you right in the face.

anyway just blazed a spliff so just want to chill the hell out now.

[quote="Dava"]
it just comes across as though you are trying to be-little me.
[quote]

Not at all.

My evidence, well, this is the only primary Journal i could find that does not require some type of membership to online journal lists. Read it and see if you're so confident about Eye Witness accounts after; then you'll see why i say Eye Witness testimony is not enough, so me demonstable evidence which is not more far fetched than the offical line and i will read it.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20 ... versky.htm

Simplicity, while sometimes useful, is often not. The truth, i've said this countless times on this forum, is often the grey area. It's rare that one of the two available extreme viewpoints is right.

Like I said before one eye witness saying they saw or heard something is not strong proof that it occured, but when hundreds of people say they heard something as easily distinguishable as an explosion I'm going to say that's pretty solid evidence that it actually occurred.

Pretty solid, not completely solid, lol just wont go that extra step will ya. I can't say as I'm surprised because goin from what yer suggesting, if enough people say they saw or heard something then it must be true. Like god, ufos, wmds, Rick Simpson and Salem witches.

Stanky Danky wrote:Like I said before one eye witness saying they saw or heard something is not strong proof that it occured, but when hundreds of people say they heard something as easily distinguishable as an explosion I'm going to say that's pretty solid evidence that it actually occurred.

Right, seriously, wtf is the point of posting stuff if people only take one side of the article ignoring the final conculsion,studies quoted and finally further implications of the article.


Taken from the article Tversky manages to show in his study that a group eye witness account can still be false;

In another part of the Tversky-Marsh study, participants were asked to play prosecutors presenting a summation to the jury.8 Participants first read a murder story, where two men were suspects. Participants were then asked either to prepare a neutral recounting of all they remembered about one suspect, or to prepare a summation to the jury about one suspect. Later, participants were asked to recall the original story. Participants who wrote summations recalled more incriminating details and wrongly attributed details among suspects more often than participants who originally wrote a neutral recounting.

So, Stanky, you're if a group of people say something it must be reliable assumption is true. It's a bit against what parts of the article is saying. Furthermore, a Philosophical problem with that viewpoint not mentioned in the journal, you're saying that numbers affect the validity of a statement. If that is true, then why support the conspiricy theories, they're against the majority viewpoint, which you seem to suggest is an indication of truth.

Simply put, one eye witness = possible bullshit, 100 eye witness = pretty solid. However, 1000's of people who do not believe the consipircy theory = bullshit. So really, it's only a majority of people that believe the alternative version which is true, no matter how many people believe the offical version of events they must be false. However a similar number of people believing the alternative explanation means it's true.

In addition, you tend to ignore any other possible factors; which because you haven't mentioned when those statements were taken after the events happened; affecting the abilty of recall ( this is outlined in the journal ) also you don't say how close the eye-witness's were possibly obscuring views, fail to mention the level of stress, shock etc. involved and the affect this has on perception, how much the eye witness's were exposed to alternative versions of events and how this affects perception.

In short, eye witness testimony of this event is very fucking short of 'pretty solid.'

rick simpson=pie in the sky...pretty rainbows..what does it mean?

Roswell


Everyone says they say a Space Ship


Goverenment ....says it a weather balloon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_Incident


General Ramey Memo

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/

This memo is a telex...thats talks of transporting the roswell victims

Weather Balloons usually dont have victims

I will offer a stipulation

Eyewitness's usually try to mean good, and do the right thing.

but.... are often victims, of themselves.

The more times they tell a story....the more the add.

Most times not even aware that they have distorted their own truth.

Dava wrote:I don't understand what your trying to get at?

Are u trying to say I'm stupid?

Obviously it's not everyones cup of tea, but just thought some people might share the same opinion, like I said I'm open minded so I will listen to anything someone has to say and give my feedback.

FAR from it mate!

no, let me start from the begining, topic title: conspiracies???

NOT "who blow up the twin T's"!!!!

do u know what is a conspiracy is?? (DONT wiki it!!)

hint: blacks law 8th ed!!! < the ONLY definition THEY UNDERSTAND!

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music". -




George Carlin

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

con·spir·a·cy 


 /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:In short, eye witness testimony of this event is very fucking short of 'pretty solid.'

Every single person who was at ground zero that day said they heard secondary explosions. What more fucking proof do you need? I challenge you to find one single video or testimony of someone who was on the ground that day who said they didn't hear explosions.

You're the one stating the 'fact' provide the statements of everybody that was at ground zero that day and you'll prove it.

Is this proof enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM