This is why eyewitness testimony stinks

[Creepy Green Light]

This is in regards to the Somali airliner that had to land shortly after takeoff because a hole was blown open in the side of the fuselage.

So you would think within the limited area of the cabin, that whatever witnesses said take place - took place. You have a limited audience and everyone is strapped in their seats. But yet the final sentence in this article from today says that there were unverifiable reports that a person got sucked out through the hole. Wait, what?? What do you mean unverifiable? Either it happened - or it didn't. And wouldn't you be able to tell when you landed and did a head count that there's someone missing? Yet once again, even the most simple scenarios get brushed with "yes it did." "no it didn't" "yes it did." "no it didn't". So if witnesses cannot even agree if a man (within close proximity to them) got sucked out of an airplane, how accurate do you think it is when someone says (say a pilot in this example) there were 3 disc shaped craft about 30 feet in diameter traveling from east to west at about 3000 mph at about a distance of 5 miles from our airplane? Then they go on to you tell you that they came up with that speed by measuring the objects move between known mountain peaks.

I'm not saying every eyewitness testimony is wrong - but I've seen some of the most simple observations get totally blown (TOTALLY) when trying to recall the event.

It makes you wonder how many people are sitting in jail, and how many have died in jail, because of flawed witness testimony. I think my most recent example of this is the Making A Murderer series. The guy spent 18 years in prison for an assault on a woman that he didn't commit. Yet the witness was one of those types to pound her fist on desk and swear that without a shadow of a doubt - he's the one that did it - and she said she'd bet her life on it. Yeah, well guess what? You picked the wrong guy and he spent 18 years in jail for it. So before you start with the fist pounding on the desk and betting your life on something - y0u better double check.

(it's the last sentence) Cellphone Video Shows Somalia Flight After Explosion

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You're absolutely right, and this is why no matter who the observer is, trained or not, just an eye witness report of a UFO is not enough to confirm the validity of the report. It's why I harp on photographic or filmed evidence.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

You're absolutely right, and this is why no matter who the observer is, trained or not, just an eye witness report of a UFO is not enough to confirm the validity of the report. It's why I harp on photographic or filmed evidence.

Agreed. I wish I had the link to that one experiment that they did (I believe it was on one of the tons of "Roswell UFO TV shows that they've done) where they take a tour group through the desert (the group thinks they are just on a foot tour of the desert) but they come across (which was all staged but unbeknownst to the people on the tour) military personnel in uniforms, guns, yellow police tape, pieces of wreckage, etc. The tour guides fake like they are surprised as well and say something like "I'm not sure whats going on but by the looks of it we need to get out of here."

Then like a month later, the people that were part of the tour get interviewed. They are asked things like "how many military personnel were there" of course, they would all give different answers. They were asked a bunch of questions and as they are saying their answer, the TV is showing what they really saw. It was pretty cool because it just demonstrated how eyewitness testimony is flawed.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I saw that and I am pretty sure it was on an episode of Penn and Teller: BullShit. However, I could be remembering it wrong...

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I saw that and I am pretty sure it was on an episode of Penn and Teller: BullShit. However, I could be remembering it wrong...

It may be but I'm almost certain it wasn't. If anybody has a link I'd appreciate it if you could post it. Thanks

 

[Goggs Mackay]

This is in regards to the Somali airliner that had to land shortly after takeoff because a hole was blown open in the side of the fuselage.

So you would think within the limited area of the cabin, that whatever witnesses said take place - took place. You have a limited audience and everyone is strapped in their seats. But yet the final sentence in this article from today says that there were unverifiable reports that a person got sucked out through the hole. Wait, what?? What do you mean unverifiable? Either it happened - or it didn't. And wouldn't you be able to tell when you landed and did a head count that there's someone missing? Yet once again, even the most simple scenarios get brushed with "yes it did." "no it didn't" "yes it did." "no it didn't". So if witnesses cannot even agree if a man (within close proximity to them) got sucked out of an airplane, how accurate do you think it is when someone says (say a pilot in this example) there were 3 disc shaped craft about 30 feet in diameter traveling from east to west at about 3000 mph at about a distance of 5 miles from our airplane? Then they go on to you tell you that they came up with that speed by measuring the objects move between known mountain peaks.

I'm not saying every eyewitness testimony is wrong - but I've seen some of the most simple observations get totally blown (TOTALLY) when trying to recall the event.

It makes you wonder how many people are sitting in jail, and how many have died in jail, because of flawed witness testimony. I think my most recent example of this is the Making A Murderer series. The guy spent 18 years in prison for an assault on a woman that he didn't commit. Yet the witness was one of those types to pound her fist on desk and swear that without a shadow of a doubt - he's the one that did it - and she said she'd bet her life on it. Yeah, well guess what? You picked the wrong guy and he spent 18 years in jail for it. So before you start with the fist pounding on the desk and betting your life on something - y0u better double check.

(it's the last sentence) Cellphone Video Shows Somalia Flight After Explosion

I'd agree 100% CGL except this is Somalia we are talking about, a country that makes North Korea look exceedingly well-run!

As for eyewitness testimony, it is very fallible except I think it is better with some things than others. If a witness says they saw a tall man walk into the bar and shoot the bartender, I reckon something matching that description took place no doubt, but when people are given a book of mugshots to look at I think it's easy to go astray.
It is exceedingly difficult even for trained investigators to clearly recall enough identifying features to adequately describe a human face well enough to pinpoint the person. Just imagine the first stranger you encountered today - whatever image (if you even have one) you have in your head, how accurate is it today after only one day?

People are railroaded into making ID's weeks, months and years after a crime. In that way, eye witness testimony must rank extremely low. But sometimes the law can only work with what it has, it's up to honest cops and lawyers to make sure crap evidence does not put people behind bars for convenience.

 

[Mulvaney]

People are railroaded into making ID's weeks, months and years after a crime. In that way, eye witness testimony must rank extremely low. But sometimes the law can only work with what it has, it's up to honest cops and lawyers to make sure crap evidence does not put people behind bars for convenience.

And sometimes the law needs to be changed:

Fixing the Eyewitness Problem

But the problems with memory - and how easy it is to manipulate identification and other recollections - make it imperative to look at the techniques used to investigate the kind of phenomenon that is often of interest in these forums and to seek validation of things that seem to be remembered so clearly

 

[boomerang]

The human brain is essentially a virtual reality generator as it (seemingly) sits at a kind of interface between the body's inner state and events exterior to the organism that affect it in terms of well being and survival. Memory is created at both conscious and subconscious levels and is always changing and adapting to optimize survival. This much has been mostly substantiated by decades of research, including work on brain injured patients who have lost the ability to form new memories and therefore live completely in the present and in times prior to whatever damaged their brain's ability to incorporate real time events. One of the stranger aspects of this is that they may respond to situations using what they have learned long after their brain injury, but have absolutely no recollection of having acquired.

So human memory is not only fallible, but malleable in the face of demands placed upon it by always changing circumstances. The human brain may be the most incredible computer imaginable but having no built in security features whatsoever. This doesn't mean memories of recalled events are wrong or meaningless. But they must always be interpreted carefully.

As far as the Somali airline incident--sure hope the Airline knows if it was missing a passenger !