"Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts"

[spooked911]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/uow-fvd0...

Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened.

Associate Professor Dr Kimberley Wade from the Department of Psychology led an experiment to see whether exposure to fabricated footage of an event could induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did.

In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw.

I think the implications for 9/11 video fakery are obvious.

[Theobald]

1. Except you actually have to show 9/11

video fakery to have a point. What you are suggesting is that somehow CGI planes were put into the multiple news videos of ABC, NBC, CBS, NY1, other stations, as well as individuals, not affiliated with networks who took there own videos of the event as it happened. Your supposition is ludicrous.

[spooked911]

4. Yeah, it would be good if you actually looked at the evidence

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reason...

[Theobald]

6. So many of those reasons are patently false it is ludicrous

1) The dearth of plane debris at all of the four crash sites.

Anyone with two eyes can see that there was plane debris at all of the crash sites. What would you consider an adequate supply of plane debris? If engine parts, seats, outer shell sections, and windows aren't enough for you, what would be?

3) Not one tail section found or observed from the four crashes though tails survive all crashes

Pulling non-existent facts out of ones ass does not make them real. And just because something never happened before doesn't mean it couldn't or didn't happen.

4) No wing tips breaking off in 2nd hit videos

Why would the wing tips break off?

9) The lack of deceleration as “UA175” goes into the south tower

The plane decelerated as it entered the building; it had to, but it doesn't have to be discernible by the human eye because of the speed and weight of the plane, which created a tremendous amount of inertia, the movement of the building and the limited quality of the videos. If you look at regular video of an arrow being shot into an an apple the deceleration would not be noticeable by the human eye, but the arrow does decelerate as it meets and transverses the apple, you just can't see it.

[Theobald]

7. In one of the points you have a dearth of plane parts

and yet in another you have 103) The high preponderance of painted fuselage debris found on the Pentagon lawn.
Which is it not enough or too much? Can you have not enough and still make a point that there was too much of something in the not enough?

[spooked911]

11. there was a dearth of debris at all 4 sites from 4 huge jets

just look at the photos of the UA93 crash site

that is a fact-- NOT patently false

etc

but clearly you're not interested in this-- either you don't give a shit, or you just don't want to "go there"

[Theobald]

15. I see you are unable of answering questions; Is it inabilty or something else?

Pictures clearly show debris at the crash sites; you can't deny that. I asked what would you consider an adequate supply of plane debris? If engine parts, seats, outer shell sections, and windows aren't enough for you, what would be?

Answer the questions!

[LARED]

2. I think you have the horse and cart in the wrong order

and horses are lousy at pushing carts.

[spooked911]

3. it's only in the wrong order if you refuse to look at or refuse to accept the evidence

the evidence for 9/11 video fakery is quite strong-- and video fakery is completely routine as a matter of course in our world.

[Realityhack]

5. No. No the evidence is not strong.

It is non-existent.

[LARED]

8. You know just saying the evidence is strong gets pretty old

after a while. If you want to have any credibility you must at some point provide actual evidence.

[Flatulo]

9. I could believe this for events of no great import.

But seriously dude, flying a jumbo jet into a gigantic skyscraper or two is not particularly subtle.

Here's a suggestion - why don't you try to track down a few dozen witnesses to Flight 175 and tell them they didn't see what they saw.

[spooked911]

10. unfortunately they have been compromised by fake video

[Flatulo]

12. That's a nice little reality you''ve created for yourself there, Spooked.

It's absolutely impenetrable due to your circular reasoning. You should see SDude for some logic lessons.

[spooked911]

13. it is not impenetrable at all

but it's a far better case than you will ever admit.

Still waiting for your answer to this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Flatulo]

16. I gave you an answer. You just don't understand it. Not my problem.

[spooked911]

19. is there a reason you can't make it

somewhat more intelligible? If you have an explanation, I'd really like to hear it. Surely you can phrase it in a way I can understand.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Spooked is a "lost cause"...

trying to educate Spooked about Logic is like trying to combine matter and anti-matter. I mean, does anyone REALLY believe Spooked's claim to be a research scientist in molecular biology?

[aronbehar]

17. I think a lot of the footage was fake too

ie: There are shots of the top of the WTC which are level and still. How can that be when no other buildings were anywhere near the height of the TT and a helicopter would not have remained still? There are even images with other buildings in the shot next to the top of the TT. How can that be? ( and the shots are "level" not taken from below.)
The Evan Fairbanks (why has he done nothing since and did nothing before?) video has an impossible shot where he gets both the top of some guy's head AND the top of a building with "plane" mysteriously disappearing into it (what a lucky shot for someone who has no recorded experience as a photographer). The towers were what? a third of a mile in the sky? How can you get something 6 feet of the ground and something 100+ stories tall in the same shot? )

[hack89]

18. Have you ever heard of a gyro stablized camera? nt

[KDLarsen]

20. He held the camera low?

Given that Evan Fairbanks was pretty close to the towers, he would have had to either bend over quite a bit to get the tower in the shot, or hold the camera low and tilt it upwards. I have no idea what kind of camera he used, but if it was a commercial one, he would probably have used the ground as a stable platform.

[Theobald]

21. So because you are ignorant of how cameras

operate and how perspective works, you somehow come to the conclusion that dozens of separate videos of the attacks on the towers were faked?

[snooper2]

22. does it get old setting this up each night?