Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fastom
Anecdotal evidence? Video can be much more easily manipulated than many eyewitnesses.
I agree people don't always see things correctly. Five witnesses to a car accident can have five different versions, but if all five saw the blue car run the red light don't you maybe think....
|
if the traffic camera says a red vw bug, then it was a vw bug. People make mistakes, even in large groups. When lots of adrenalin and panic is involved, memories get distorted.
Take this example, 3 cars, a red vw bug, a blue car, and a van. The van enters the intersection going north, with the blue car a bit behind it. The red VW bug runs the light smashing into the van; the van spins 90 degrees and comes to a stop. The red VW bug takes off but the blue car was not paying attention and broad sides the van, and gets stuck in it. Several witnesses are around, one person actually sees the bug hit the van out of the comer of his eye, as the blue car is about to hit, he yells, “OMG the blue car is going to hit that van”. Everyone else looks up in time to see the blue car smash the van. Everyone thinks they saw what happened, but no one really did. No one but the traffic camera saw the hummer push the VW bug into the intersection, a failed mob hit.
Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence. It is easily manipulated, by all the media coverage. We both see the video of the towers collapse, where I see dust shooting out because of the falling floors, you see explosive charges placed, because you read it on some website, claiming to be an expert demolitions.
(Ok, ok I 'm not going to quit my day job and write mystery novels)