Why do members believe some eyewitness reports while not other reports?

I've posted a number of threads or replies where people have been interviewed on various Youtube videos. The people interviewed are usually eyewitnesses to things that you won't see talked about on the main stream media so they find the only other outlets that will tell their story which inevitably is some Youtube channel, video blogger or independent news website. An example of this is some of the reports about how the fire(s) were acting in Cali, how houses and trees would suddenly become entirely engulfed in flames, often producing the smoke at the same time the erupted in flames so it would seem that it wasn't smoldering for minutes before, which is common in house fires, and for trees or utility poles to completely burst into flames - all of this far ahead of the front of the fire (reported at about a mile).

The one witness said that he thought he had at least 10 minutes b/c the fire was at least a mile away but moving towards him and within a minute or two the fire moved to either side of the road (running parallel to the fire front) - seemingly leaping a mile+ ahead of where it had been just seconds ago.

Now I got a number of people questioing whether a story like this could be believed. It was done by a YT channel with about 40-50K subscribers and may of had 10K views, so it isn't like this guy was trying to get famous (at least not doing it well) with such small viewership. But he felt it important enough to find someone who would listen to him and get his message out.

Now on the other hand we have people like the migrants from Central America and Venezuela. I've seen interviews where women are trying to cross the border and they make various claims, one wanted to cross b/c she said her daughter was sick and needed medical care (urgent dialysis). She had been traveling over 9 days from Venezuela's capital to the crossing (~400 miles) and she needed to get to Cali (city in Colombia) to get this medical care. Cali is 525 miles from the crossing which means she passes the largest city, Bogota the Capital, (3x size of Cali at ~240 miles from the crossing & on the way to Cali) and Medellin, 250 miles from the crossing (same size as Cali and on the way as well). I would think urgent medical care can rarely wait 9 days let along the rest to get to Cali (especially with no money). Why not seek immediate local care?

Where she is seeking care really isn't the question it is that why would some people believe this person over the person reporting the fires breaking out. Granted the migrant was interviewed by a BBC reporter but the topic of migration also lines up with their politics. It should be noted that the Colombians were not letting people cross illegally into the country (military was guarding their border) but after the woman talked to the reporter the reporter talked to the ranking "guard" on site and told them the situation. The military officer called in and reported the situation and at the end said "along with foreign press crew" - after 10-20 mins they were given entry and it is obvious this is because the reporter was there, had a "foreign press crew" not been there I sincerely think the outcome would have been different.

Now I have to think whether this reporter would have been as pro-active in trying to help or find answers for the guy who just lost his home and drove through the fire. Would he have asked the hard questions about why are trees and houses a mile ahead of the fire bursting into flames? No, I don't think he would unless he got clearance for his bosses to pursue that type of inquiry and IDK if he would even believe the witness.

These types of reports also cover those interviewed in the caravan who say they are only looking for work or they are scared to be in their country and all the other reasons and situations explained/reported by the caravan members. We seem to have plenty of members who will believe these people 100% w/o any other thought or question but when it comes to a guy in a youtube video reporting his experience we have people that won't believe him - a guy who has very little to gain from doing a 40+ min interview - IDK what his motive would be, but I can clearly see motive for the migrants.
IMO the guy in the video sounds credible, he does get into politics a little towards the end, but in today's age most people have political views especially people where he lives.



Since there will be people who can't look at a post and just discuss it as an abstract question and they need to see "proof" of what is being talked about. Here are the video's of the two examples. There are plenty more of each of these, fire and migrant reports that are similar to both stories I explained.

Unreported World - BBC


Escape from Fire - The main story starts around 3 min and then the details of the odd fire behavior from 7:30 - 10 mins



So, why do some people find one witness credible and another not credible - especially when one witness gains something from giving their "story" and/or benefits from their actions being reported upon. Has this gotten to the point it is completely political and it makes no difference if the story is true or not?

Short answer? Yes.

Most people are completely blind to their biases. They believe what fits their narrative - political or not.

Very few true detectives left.

One is about migrants seeking asylum at the border and the other is about California being attacked by space weapons from above.

I’ll let you figure out the difference.

Confirmation bias. The short of it is that all eyewitnesses are unreliable. In fact the most confident eyewitnesses tend to be the most wrong. Just look in to "flashbulb memories."

That said, I don't get how your two examples really correlate. The first one is an eyewitness report. In the second case, at least from what I feel you're trying to get at,the woman is discussing a diagnosis her child was given. That's not the same thing as an eyewitness report. That's just relaying facts.

While I try to be open minded, I could easily make a YouTube video, claim a friend was an “eyewitness” to something (pretending like we don’t know each other), and post it.

Personally, I think it is irrelevant what videos come from the caravan. Immigrants need to follow the rules of immigrating into the country they seek to enter.

To answer your OP question, the reason I might believe one “eyewitness” over another is that I spent a lot of years (decades) in jobs where I needed to (and was trained to) recognize deceptive behavior. Many “eyewitnesses” are not truth tellers.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Some people are simply not credible. It could be their body language, inconsistencies in their account, the witnesses political allegiance and or implied identity politics in contrast to the viewer, or a history of being a liar.

Take for example Gloria Allred. She had one good case a long time ago. Since then we only see her on TV representing clients in the spotlight of democratic leaning MSM. Has she ever followed through with any of the cases for these "victims"? Nope. In fact we have come to find there has been forgery in that one case involving Roy Moore. Now when i see Gloria parading a client on MSM, i dismiss anything she says as bulls#$t.

Energy radiating from the fire, it does not necessarily have to be heat energy, can excite the molecules of the materials nearby and cause them to burst into flames. Heat is a catalyst, fire is a chemical reaction. This is actually common in high energy events. The energy can also overload the bonds holding something together and melt them or cause them to explode violently.

If people do not think something is possible, they filter what is really happening out of their minds, only remembering what they thought was real. You see what you believe to be real or possible. You see what you know unless you accept that you do not really know as much as you believe you know.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I think people experience the world through the filter of their own dogma. All dogmas are built on a set of axioms or premises accepted as being true without any proof. Each of us has many axioms that make up our own personal dogma. For example, for people who do not share the "God exists" axiom certain statements and comments seem insane. It's just the nature of human language to see the World through a filter that confirms all our preexisting prejudices.

In terms of spontaneous ignition of wild fires in CA I would go with Occam's razor and just think high speed winds create the new fires by caring hot embers in the sky too small and too fast to be detected by the human eye.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I see eyewitnesses all over the map when planes crash. There was a 737 crash in Russia that was almost certainly caused by unreliable data to the pilots, due to the pitot heat not being activated before takeoff. The aircraft was intact when it crashed, and not on fire. Eyewitnesses had them colliding with another aircraft that was transporting mail in the area, crashing with at least one engine on fire, exploding in midair before impact, or just breaking up in flight. Eyewitnesses can provide valuable information, or they can give reports that are absolutely wrong and all over the map.

originally posted by: underwerks
One is about migrants seeking asylum at the border and the other is about California being attacked by space weapons from above.

I’ll let you figure out the difference.

Oh, I know the difference: the migrants prefer the free healthcare and the Space Force is working out the kinks; MSM leaves the hard-hitting stuff for the YTers and looks to uncover crazy-ass conspiracies — need to occupy their empty Emmy/Pulitzer cases. It’s a path of least resistance-type thingy.

Fires 🔥 jumping containment and spontaneously igniting fuel feedstocks (utility poles, etc.) is beyond imaginatable, but migrant caravans loaded with rabid (rabid as in persons are infected with rabies), lepers are such low-hanging fruit, YouTube witnesses are the only means we have to uncover the truth. Sounds about right.

originally posted by: underwerks
One is about migrants seeking asylum at the border and the other is about California being attacked by space weapons from above.

I’ll let you figure out the difference.

That is what you are claiming, "space weapon" I mean. IDK that I have ever once mentioned that in my life. I simple said the fires are unusual and might have mentioned some possible ways it could happen (not space based though..) though that is certainly not an all inclusive list - which is why I would be posting, to help find out what may be happening and analyze the reports.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I like a lot of your posts, but I do think they require one to have an open mind. A lot of people think they are open minded but they really really don't.

I also get what you are saying about the two videos. People are very easy to dismiss youtube vs a large broadcast company.
Isn't that funny. You would think a large company would have more at stake and could hire believable actors, put more money into it so they get more advertising etc.

I absolutely loved youtube when it first started. I think a lot of of "content creators" have done a disservice to so many of the good true videos out there.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Confirmation bias. The short of it is that all eyewitnesses are unreliable. In fact the most confident eyewitnesses tend to be the most wrong. Just look in to "flashbulb memories."

That said, I don't get how your two examples really correlate. The first one is an eyewitness report. In the second case, at least from what I feel you're trying to get at,the woman is discussing a diagnosis her child was given. That's not the same thing as an eyewitness report. That's just relaying facts.

She used the "medical issue" as a means to gain access to the country. If the kid wasn't sick she wouldn't have had the sympathy from the reporter, the reporter wouldn't have asked the guards on her behalf. If kid needed dialysis 9-18 days is much too long and it seems it is more likely the person is unaware of the medical facts of what she is claiming, thus it lends less credibility to her story. She also benefits from getting access to the country instead of the guards turning her away. Why believe this woman who benefits from entry and not a guy who doesn't benefit from giving a MUCH longer report. What's his motive?

originally posted by: Lab4Us
While I try to be open minded, I could easily make a YouTube video, claim a friend was an “eyewitness” to something (pretending like we don’t know each other), and post it.

Personally, I think it is irrelevant what videos come from the caravan. Immigrants need to follow the rules of immigrating into the country they seek to enter.

To answer your OP question, the reason I might believe one “eyewitness” over another is that I spent a lot of years (decades) in jobs where I needed to (and was trained to) recognize deceptive behavior. Many “eyewitnesses” are not truth tellers.

Very good answer I think! Some people who are never in the position where they need to detect lies by talking or listening to people find it difficult to do so when watching TV/radio. It is most definitely an acquired skill and human behavior is often very similar from culture to culture when it comes to deception, though not all is the same.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I like a lot of your posts, but I do think they require one to have an open mind. A lot of people think they are open minded but they really really don't.

I also get what you are saying about the two videos. People are very easy to dismiss youtube vs a large broadcast company.
Isn't that funny. You would think a large company would have more at stake and could hire believable actors, put more money into it so they get more advertising etc.

I absolutely loved youtube when it first started. I think a lot of of "content creators" have done a disservice to so many of the good true videos out there.

I generally agree with much of what you write as well. Yes, I often write things that are outside the box thinking, some will say crazy (I often call them crazy or blind - out of frustration and in jest mostly - , so I guess it is fair). What is a PITA is that just b/c someone posts a thread exploring an issue doesn't mean they support it, they could be looking for viewpoints of how others think or really want to know how people feel and why - to help them make a decision on things. It's better than listening to the media tell us what to think.

One of the main problems with MSM (TV & print) is they might spend a month covering a topic like someone accused of rape or murder and even might publish something completely false about the case and or another person/topic. If the case is dismissed or the falsehood uncovered they do little to correct the damage in comparison to their month long campaign. A small 10 second clip explaining they were wrong or 1 paragraph correction admiting they printed a false report, etc, and then they are off to the next big story or person to slander. They might spend 100-10,000 times more covering a false charge, often pushing a bias against the person, then they do on the truth or correction. How does this person get their name back?

Regarding the fire story, some large fires can move as fast a car sometimes. Not taking a viewpoint here on what happened.

Also in recent decades a good amount of psychology and legal research has come out that suggests many eyewitness accounts aren’t good evidence nor accurate, even when honest.
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

In addition to any other reason why people do this, is that they view the world through their own frame of reference. If something is within that frame of reference then they will accept it.

If its outside that frame of reference then they will not accept it.