FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You cannot discredit a person's statement without providing credible proof.

If you are saying their accounts are not credible, they have a right to stand up to your allegations.

You cannot just say somebody is discredited by say so. With out credible proof it's immoral and slander.

Eyewitnesses, or just any person in general, are considered credible until you prove by credible evidence otherwise. You cannot say someone is discredited with no proof.

Have you taken a oath for this thread. So I could say everything you have posted is discredited? No, I cannot! I need to make a case and provide evidence.

Because you see them with the government doesn't mean they are not individuals with basic rights. And they have a right to know if you are accusing them of not being credible or lying.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

history.defense.gov...

Here's some testimony about the pentagon recordings that may interest you.

Again, that is not testimony. Testimony is given under solemn oath. THAT is an interview with the *cough* interesting label of being an 'Oral History.'

Interviews and 'oral histories' have zero evidentiary weight.

Oral history is the systematic collection of living people's testimony about their own experiences. Oral history is not folklore, gossip, hearsay, or rumor.
NASA systematically documented its operations through oral histories, does this mean you don't believe man went to the moon as well?
Maybe the ISS isn't up there like we've been told?

Still, prove my stance a large jet hit the pentagon is wrong!

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

history.defense.gov...

Here's some testimony about the pentagon recordings that may interest you.

Again, that is not testimony. Testimony is given under solemn oath. THAT is an interview with the *cough* interesting label of being an 'Oral History.'

Interviews and 'oral histories' have zero evidentiary weight.

Oral history is the systematic collection of living people's testimony about their own experiences. Oral history is not folklore, gossip, hearsay, or rumor.

"Testimony" used as "evidence' is given under solemn oath. FFS.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You cannot discredit a person's statement without providing credible proof.

If you are saying their accounts are not credible, they have a right to stand up to your allegations.

You cannot just say somebody is discredited by say so. With out credible proof it's immoral and slander.

Eyewitnesses, or just any person in general, are considered credible until you prove by credible evidence otherwise. You cannot say someone is discredited with no proof.

Have you taken a oath for this thread. So I could say everything you have posted is discredited? No, I cannot! I need to make a case and provide evidence.

Because you see them with the government doesn't mean they are not individuals with basic rights. And they have a right to know if you are accusing them of not being credible or lying.

Oh, please. Tell that to the dozens of posters around here that shout "fake news" at the mere mention of a source....and every other ATSer, for that matter, who has not believed someone.

I can say I don't believe (insert whoever here) and it is never defamatory because it's true. You really do not understand what defamation is.

Definition of defamation
law
: the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person

Is it untrue that I give that oral history zero evidentiary weight because it was not testimony given under solemn oath?

Nope.

Did I cause a legal injury to that person by saying that?

Nope.

Besides, I posted a page back on one thing I had doubts about in that 'Oral History.'

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You cannot discredit a person's statement without providing credible proof.

If you are saying their accounts are not credible, they have a right to stand up to your allegations.

You cannot just say somebody is discredited by say so. With out credible proof it's immoral and slander.

Eyewitnesses, or just any person in general, are considered credible until you prove by credible evidence otherwise. You cannot say someone is discredited with no proof.

Have you taken a oath for this thread. So I could say everything you have posted is discredited? No, I cannot! I need to make a case and provide evidence.

Because you see them with the government doesn't mean they are not individuals with basic rights. And they have a right to know if you are accusing them of not being credible or lying.

Oh, please. Tell that to the dozens of posters around here that shout "fake news" at the mere mention of a source....and every other ATSer, for that matter, who has not believed someone.

I can say I don't believe (insert whoever here) and it is never defamatory because it's true. You really do not understand what defamation is.

Definition of defamation
law
: the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person

Is it untrue that I give that oral history zero evidentiary weight because it was not testimony given under solemn oath?

Nope.

Did I cause a legal injury to that person by saying that?

Nope.

Besides, I posted a page back on one thing I had doubts about in that 'Oral History.'

One, provide credible evidence that discredits eyewitnesses.

Your argument is a straw man. You cannot just in course shout out, "this person is under oath, so I discredit this personal account." Even in court, you need to provide credible evidence to discredit somebody.

Two, how does this disprove my stance a large jet hit the pentagon.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The objective of this classroom exercise is to introduce students to the use, comparison, and evaluation of primary source documents. Students will learn what a primary source and first person testimony are, and the difference between primary and secondary sources.

DEFINITIONS

Primary source - a document or object that was created by an individual or group as part of their daily lives. Primary sources include birth certificates, photographs, diaries, letters, embroidered samplers, clothing, household implements, and newspapers.

First person testimony - the account of a person who actually participated in an event. Examples are oral history interviews, diaries, letters, photographs and drawings of events, and court testimony of an eyewitness.

Secondary source - summaries, second-hand accounts, and analyses of events created by someone who did not witness the event, but may have read or heard about it. Examples may include: books or articles written on a topic, artworks depicting an event, letters or diaries recounting a version of events told to the author by another source.

Second person or hearsay testimony - an account repeated by someone who did not actually participate in the event. Examples are newspaper accounts from interviews of observers, letters that repeat a story told to the writer, drawings based on other people’s observations, or a book written about a topic.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You cannot discredit a person's statement without providing credible proof.

If you are saying their accounts are not credible, they have a right to stand up to your allegations.

You cannot just say somebody is discredited by say so. With out credible proof it's immoral and slander.

Eyewitnesses, or just any person in general, are considered credible until you prove by credible evidence otherwise. You cannot say someone is discredited with no proof.

Have you taken a oath for this thread. So I could say everything you have posted is discredited? No, I cannot! I need to make a case and provide evidence.

Because you see them with the government doesn't mean they are not individuals with basic rights. And they have a right to know if you are accusing them of not being credible or lying.

Oh, please. Tell that to the dozens of posters around here that shout "fake news" at the mere mention of a source....and every other ATSer, for that matter, who has not believed someone.

I can say I don't believe (insert whoever here) and it is never defamatory because it's true. You really do not understand what defamation is.

Definition of defamation
law
: the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person

Is it untrue that I give that oral history zero evidentiary weight because it was not testimony given under solemn oath?

Nope.

Did I cause a legal injury to that person by saying that?

Nope.

Besides, I posted a page back on one thing I had doubts about in that 'Oral History.'

One, provide credible evidence that discredits eyewitnesses.

Your argument is a straw man. You cannot just in course shout out, "this person is under oath, so I discredit this personal account." Even in court, you need to provide credible evidence to discredit somebody.

Two, how does this disprove my stance a large jet hit the pentagon.

In court, an eyewitness would be questioned and cross-examined under oath.

My argument isn't a straw man. I am saying that I don't give that interview any evidentiary weight because it was NOT testimony given under oath. It has ZERO weight as "evidence." It's just a fact.

You literally called it 'testimony.' So did D8tree. That is incorrect. It's an interview, so it has zero evidentiary weight.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

To be more academic, how does anything your provide discredit the different sources cited there is no more footage to release? The sources cited using the scientific method a large jet hit the pentagon. The source cited the flight recorder data is legitimate and proves the official flight path. The source cited the damage was probably from a large jet, and not explosives?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Let's play court, put up a question you would put to the persons you are trying to discredit? Put forward the evidence you would in court? I probably will not be around? Time to start an early weekend! Life is better than ATS! I hope you are not so whatever to belittle are person for starting an enjoyable weekend?

a reply to: D8Tee

Neat-o 'classroom exercise.'

I was talking about real life though:

Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully
Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience.

Federal Rules of Evidence

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Let's play court, put up a question you would put to the persons you are trying to discredit? Put forward the evidence you would in court? I probably will not be around? Time to start an early weekend! Life is better than ATS! I hope you are not so whatever to belittle are person for starting an enjoyable weekend?

Stop taking this discussion so seriously. I don't care if you believe the OS, so don't fret so much that I have doubts.

The first question I would ask any eyewitness is whether anyone has ever asked them to lie.

Have a fabulous weekend!

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Let's play court, put up a question you would put to the persons you are trying to discredit? Put forward the evidence you would in court? I probably will not be around? Time to start an early weekend! Life is better than ATS! I hope you are not so whatever to belittle are person for starting an enjoyable weekend?

Stop taking this discussion so seriously. I don't care if you believe the OS, so don't fret so much that I have doubts.

The first question I would ask any eyewitness is whether anyone has ever asked them to lie.

Have a fabulous weekend!

Testimony is known as statements that are based on personal experience or personal knowledge. A statement is accepted on the basis of person's testimony if his or her asserting it renders it acceptable. We can also, rationally accept a claim on the basis of another person's testimony unless at least one of the following is found to be true:

1. The claim is implausible;
2. The person or the source in which the claim is quoted lacks credibility;
3, The claim goes beyond what the person could know from his or her own experience and competence.

1. No the claim is not implausible
2. The person is credible.
3. The person is qualified.

There is no need to put this man on trial and have him cross examined.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Let's play court, put up a question you would put to the persons you are trying to discredit? Put forward the evidence you would in court? I probably will not be around? Time to start an early weekend! Life is better than ATS! I hope you are not so whatever to belittle are person for starting an enjoyable weekend?

Stop taking this discussion so seriously. I don't care if you believe the OS, so don't fret so much that I have doubts.

The first question I would ask any eyewitness is whether anyone has ever asked them to lie.

Have a fabulous weekend!

Testimony is known as statements that are based on personal experience or personal knowledge. A statement is accepted on the basis of person's testimony if his or her asserting it renders it acceptable. We can also, rationally accept a claim on the basis of another person's testimony unless at least one of the following is found to be true:

1. The claim is implausible;
2. The person or the source in which the claim is quoted lacks credibility;
3, The claim goes beyond what the person could know from his or her own experience and competence.

1. No the claim is not implausible
2. The person is credible.
3. The person is qualified.

There is no need to put this man on trial and have him cross examined.

'Testimony' only has value AS EVIDENCE when it is given under oath.

Please stop trying to conflate some ordinary definition of 'testimony' to the legal one. I just directed you to the Federal Rules of Evidence. If all prosecutors/defense attorneys had to do to prove their cases is introduce statements not given under oath and not subject to cross-examination, then that would be a very unjust system. If investigators were allowed to conceal evidence that would prove their case and merely insist if a jury saw it they would agree it proves their case, then that would be a very unjust system.

No need to put him under oath and cross-examine him? What makes him so flipping special and above doubting?

This conversation is pretty worthless. I have better things to do.

a reply to: D8Tee

AND, btw, this interview took place FIVE years after 9/11. If anything said during it was ever proven to be untrue, there are no perjury penalties and the person could simply claim to be mistaken in their recollection, after five years. OSers would rally and call any untruth meaningless.

It would be so very easy to lie and get away with it. And here you guys are peddling it as 'testimony.' You've claimed this interview rises to the level of being 'evidence.'

There's just no evidentiary weight to it, at all.

I'm waiting for the spy satellite video to be released, I just know it exists.

Why won't they show this to us?

It could clear up everything!

originally posted by: D8Tee
I'm waiting for the spy satellite video to be released, I just know it exists.

Why won't they show this to us?

It could clear up everything!

As I said earlier, this conversation is worthless. I can only interpret this comment to mean you have waved your white flag.

Seen and mercy given.

Moving on.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not interested in winning or losing, i won't be waving a white flag as it's not a contest to me.

Learning and looking at the available evidence is my style.

Whining about evidence that is not available to me does me no good.

All of the available evidence supports an airliner having hit the Pentagon, you don't agree?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not interested in winning or losing, i won't be waving a white flag as it's not a contest to me.

Learning and looking at the available evidence is my style.

Whining about evidence that is not available to me does me no good.

All of the available evidence supports an airliner having hit the Pentagon, you don't agree?

Unfortunately, evidence that has been solely in the chain of custody of potential suspects -- suspects who are also concealing other evidence -- has very little evidentiary value.

I know you don't believe ordinary people are allowed to weigh evidence and hold the federal government to the same legal standards as any other 'suspect' -- according to the 'Federal Rules of Evidence' -- but we are.

You don't have to give the federal government every benefit of the doubt...they haven't earned it.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

All of the available evidence supports an airliner having hit the Pentagon, you don't agree?