It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beware of testimonies from witnesses

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
In any possible conspiracy, we - conspiracy theorists and none conspiracy theorists - always tend to follow the testimonies from any witnesses that might come forward. After the evidence of a possible conspiracy is presented and analyzed, such as a video of an event, the views of the witnesses of the event are analyzed to prove what may or may not have occurred.

We must beware, however, of these testimonies from witnesses because the views of certain people are seen as more credible than others. Why are the views of people such as policemen, firefighters, and military personnel viewed as more credible than the common guy on the street? When disproving or proving a possible conspiracy, such credible people are often interviewed in order to disprove or prove something.

Just watch any conspiracy video or any video attempting to disprove a possible conspiracy, and you can see this for yourself. To me, this is self-evident, so I am leaving this up to you to see the evidence for yourself. I am framing this view, just so you all know, within the context of 9/11 because that, to me, is the best example of this.

Let's see some examples:

How would a policemen know more than the common guy on the street about how high/fast a plane was flying?

How would a policemen know more than the common guy on the street about the sounds of explosions?

These may not be the best examples (I thought about them just now), but I hope you can see what I am getting at.

Let's say I was making a video to prove that a conspiracy occurred. I would want to interview witnesses in such professions as law enforcement, firefighting, and the military to prove a possible conspiracy, right? The problem with this is that I might use these witnesses to discuss things that are not related to their professions, such as asking a police officer how high a plane was flying.

Here is the key question:

What would you believe more: a video attempting to prove a possible conspiracy filled with interviews of the common folk on the street, or a video attempting to disprove a possible conspiracy using such people as policemen, firefighters, and military personnel?

I think many people would choose the latter.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I would have to go with the "common folk" on this one but that would also be people such as policemen, firemen, etc...

The thing with witnesses is that everyone sees something a little differently than the next no matter what. They may see generally the same thing but no two stories will match up perfectly.

The best advice I can give someone either watching a video looking to uncover the truth or someone trying to put one together is be open minded. So many times people will go into something with a conclusion already in their heads and will only put/pay attention to the people that agree with their conclusion. I have seen it everywhere (even here on ATS). If you are looking to make a film about a conspiracy try to get as many people interviewed as possible. Try not to edit your film in a way to make "your side" look stronger (truthfully it only hurts the outcome you are trying to accomplish). An intelligent viewer will be able to see right through all the smoke and mirrors and think less of what you are trying to pass along (no matter how important or valid your claims are). On the other hand if you are watching a film trying to uncover a conspiracy, like I said be open minded. Just because someone in the film says something that may contradict something you believe do not just pass it aside as "hogwash"
(love that phrase sorry). You should not be watching these films to get all the answers but you should use them as a guide on where to start your own research. If you are watching a conspiracy film do not be afraid to also do your own research.

Now time for my rant... stop reading now if you do not want to be taken off topic a little


The best example at losing an intelligent viewer is MSNBC and FOX NEWS. I don't care what side you're on (P.S. there are no sides) how can someone watch hours upon hours of one side talking down about the other. No matter what, everytime I happen to watch MSNBC or FOX NEWS for a few minutes I can't help but start laughing... Rebuplicans this... Democrats that... it is extremely funny....... until I hit around the five minute mark when my laughter stops. It stops because I relize that there are people from both sides that do watch this junk and believe it. Have you ever noticed that every single political thread is post after post of headlines from either Maddow or Limbaugh? This is what an intelligent person thinks when their is only one side presented on any matter and their is no wiggle room to think for yourself... LET THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA CARRY ON!!!!



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Police officers or firefighters have more training there your regular civilian when it comes to things such as explosions(so they will definitely know if they heard one)... Also realize that a police officer will usually be very accurate in there description and realize more details then your typical civilian due to there job ......... whenever an arrest is made and the officer fills out the affidavit he\she must put in as many details as possible regarding what he \she had witnessed and or evidence collected etc etc... in other words police officers pay allot more attention then civilians to details then your average citizen... So to say your Average citizen is about as credible as a police officers testimony is extremely inaccurate.. this is why a police officer will usually win in a court of law against you.......... if it comes down to his word against your..



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
So to say your Average citizen is about as credible as a police officers testimony is extremely inaccurate..


This is my point! I agree with you, though, but I am talking about using such witnesses as police officers to talk about things that are not related to their jobs. Maybe, let's say, asking a police officer about the existence of a conspiracy. The officer might say it is hogwash, while a Joe Schmo might say it is true. Who will most believe? How would a police officer know more about the existence of a possible conspiracy more than this Joe Schmo?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I think I have often heard that people will lean toward police officers because the are trained observers by profession. I suspect a similar sentiment towards military persons. A fireman when speaking of explosions, fire etc. makes sense.

What I find interesting in terms of conspiracies though, is that generally any public official, government employee etc. are usually looked upon as dishonest because of their affiliation with government. You know, can't trust the gov.

The other unknown here is the profession or potential hobbies of the so called "average joe public"

Joe might be an explosives expert by trade, or a chemical engineer or a pyromaniac who knows.....



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PowerSlave
What I find interesting in terms of conspiracies though, is that generally any public official, government employee etc. are usually looked upon as dishonest because of their affiliation with government. You know, can't trust the gov.


I think the opposite. I think that people, at least when watching a documentary or something, will lean towards those kinds of people's views.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join