It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: opethPA
It's amazing to me that people on this thread who have gone full on with the "special ops killing people in the attack" or that ridiculous pic of the 3 guys being the same line of thinking seem unable to grasp how unreliable initial witness information is.
Have you never played Whisper Down the Lane in school? Do you not realize that you can show a 5 second video clip to a room 20 people and get multiple different reports of what the video showed?
Why is it that conspiracy people that like to claim how awake they are throw all deductive and logical reasoning out the door in order to paint their latest X-Files episode?
However, a study by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) contradicts the importance of stress in influencing eyewitness memory.
They showed that witnesses of a real life incident (a gun shooting outside a gun shop in Canada) had remarkable accurate memories of a stressful event involving weapons. A thief stole guns and money, but was shot six times and died.
The police interviewed witnesses, and thirteen of them were re-interviewed five months later. Recall was found to be accurate, even after a long time, and two misleading questions inserted by the research team had no effect on recall accuracy. One weakness of this study was that the witnesses who experienced the highest levels of stress where actually closer to the event, and this may have helped with the accuracy of their memory recall.
The Yuille and Cutshall study illustrates two important points:
1. There are cases of real-life recall where memory for an anxious / stressful event is accurate, even some months later.
2. Misleading questions need not have the same effect as has been found in laboratory studies (e.g. Loftus & Palmer).
So we got the whole world identifying the man and woman as the shooters
And yet the guy died wearing a pair of shorts...Like someone said, there should have been cameras...There's no reason they should not be able to show us the videos unless they are lying...
originally posted by: mandelaeffect
It does seem like impala slipped off the first witnesses tongue while he was trying to think of a particular model of SUV then the woman beside him said a small car then he said no just an SUV.
both witnesses describe black military clothing in general so i find it intriguing even that commonality would be disputed. obviously they weren't covered head to to lest how would they see? (i dont even know what fatigues look like)
all three being tall males is key. to picture Mrs Malik as fitting that profile is quite a stretch to say the least.