Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:09 AM
Original message
"Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts"
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yeah, it would be good if you actually looked at the evidence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. So many of those reasons are patently false it is ludicrous
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 01:58 PM by Theobald
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. In one of the points you have a dearth of plane parts
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 01:59 PM by Theobald
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
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"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-19-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think you have the horse and cart in the wrong order
and horses are lousy at pushing carts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. No. No the evidence is not strong.
It is non-existent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. unfortunately they have been compromised by fake video
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-19-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-19-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #12
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-19-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I gave you an answer. You just don't understand it. Not my problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-19-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-19-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aronbehar Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-19-09 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
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? )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-19-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Have you ever heard of a gyro stablized camera? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-20-09 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-20-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-21-09 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
22. does it get old setting this up each night?




:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC