SRL+
Paranormal Adept
RE: Elizabeth Loftus in relation to eye witness testimony
As anyone may conclude after viewing the videos below, the adult test subjects were asked to recall distant childhood memories which were then strongly influenced by Elizabeth Loftus’s research. This had very little if anything to do with an individual having a recent experience, rather, the manipulation of distant memories. Loftus then goes on further to describe the nuances of more recent experiences on test subjects in relation to false, suggested memories. Such as, not that an individual was in and driving a vehicle during the time of an accident, rather, the driver failed in noticing, and ran a stop sign. Then Loftus suggested to the test subjects it was actually a yield sign, with some actually believing it. Just as an aside, not everyone’s memories may be false, or have been manipulated.
Again, it should be fairly obvious to most anyone that even though the test subject’s memory was able to be influenced, it doesn’t change the fact that indeed, they still remembered a vehicle being involved in an accident, with a driver behind the wheel. The power of suggestion is nothing new here, and has been known since the Greek, and Roman eras.
So, in one respect Bob is partially correct, however, not entirely, which is a major problem with any type of investigator who may be predisposed in any type of preconceived belief, in leading the witness or experiencer astray.
Investigating, as an art form may take many years to refine. Take for instance an attorney engaged in deposition: when someone is being deposed prior to a trial they are questioned about events pertaining to the case. Usually, the individual in which is being deposed draws from memory in seeking images from consciousness first, then assigning meaning, (words), to their narrative. Any additional outside facts surrounding their narrative are then held up to their narrative in being viewed through the critical lens, in hopefully providing additional illumination. If their image of events is clouded, they cannot assign any meaningful words, and their recollection, along with their testimony may be called into question. This happens quite frequently with individuals who think they know, when in truth, only portions of their true recollection are partially known.
Trial attorneys can be extremely effective in separating the signal from noise concerning the truthful testimony of a witness, as they are highly trained professionals.
BTW, Vallee is acutely aware of the nuances of investigation, as once the media arrives at the scene of a sighting or zeroes in on the experiencer, memories may become distorted, in corrupting the case. Bob doesn’t seem to understand this. Why?
Bob is supposed be a genius, and has been a professional expert on UFOs for decades. He has not the faintest clue as to the Hessdalen Project created in 1983. Most all of us here know about it, and most of us aren’t experts. What about Bob, what’s his excuse?
Hessdalen light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bob failed to recognize the fact below in dismissing it's possibility.
Sharp and Grove developed 'receiverless' wireless voice transmission technologies for the Advanced Research Projects Agency at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in 1973. In the above mentioned journal entry to American Psychologist, Dr. Don Justesen reports that Sharp and Grove were readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among the single-syllable words for digits between 1 and 10. Justesen writes, "The sounds heard were not unlike those emitted by persons with an artificial voice box (Electrolarynx). Communication of more complex words and of sentences was not attempted because the averaged densities of energy required to transmit longer messages would approach the [still] current 10mW/cm² limit of safe exposure."[7]
Microwave auditory effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hoping that Bob may possibly be available, I think that we would all welcome his participation here. Perhaps, in the remotest of all possibilities of assisting in clearing up some of his misconceptions.
This man was practically copying and pasting the entire interview, with a lackluster performance that only the misinformed debunker could possibly accomplish.
On one final note here: I have the utmost respect for the Royal Society of London and the use of the scientific method. However, I cannot now find nearly as credible the MENSA Society.
As anyone may conclude after viewing the videos below, the adult test subjects were asked to recall distant childhood memories which were then strongly influenced by Elizabeth Loftus’s research. This had very little if anything to do with an individual having a recent experience, rather, the manipulation of distant memories. Loftus then goes on further to describe the nuances of more recent experiences on test subjects in relation to false, suggested memories. Such as, not that an individual was in and driving a vehicle during the time of an accident, rather, the driver failed in noticing, and ran a stop sign. Then Loftus suggested to the test subjects it was actually a yield sign, with some actually believing it. Just as an aside, not everyone’s memories may be false, or have been manipulated.
Again, it should be fairly obvious to most anyone that even though the test subject’s memory was able to be influenced, it doesn’t change the fact that indeed, they still remembered a vehicle being involved in an accident, with a driver behind the wheel. The power of suggestion is nothing new here, and has been known since the Greek, and Roman eras.
So, in one respect Bob is partially correct, however, not entirely, which is a major problem with any type of investigator who may be predisposed in any type of preconceived belief, in leading the witness or experiencer astray.
Investigating, as an art form may take many years to refine. Take for instance an attorney engaged in deposition: when someone is being deposed prior to a trial they are questioned about events pertaining to the case. Usually, the individual in which is being deposed draws from memory in seeking images from consciousness first, then assigning meaning, (words), to their narrative. Any additional outside facts surrounding their narrative are then held up to their narrative in being viewed through the critical lens, in hopefully providing additional illumination. If their image of events is clouded, they cannot assign any meaningful words, and their recollection, along with their testimony may be called into question. This happens quite frequently with individuals who think they know, when in truth, only portions of their true recollection are partially known.
Trial attorneys can be extremely effective in separating the signal from noise concerning the truthful testimony of a witness, as they are highly trained professionals.
BTW, Vallee is acutely aware of the nuances of investigation, as once the media arrives at the scene of a sighting or zeroes in on the experiencer, memories may become distorted, in corrupting the case. Bob doesn’t seem to understand this. Why?
Bob is supposed be a genius, and has been a professional expert on UFOs for decades. He has not the faintest clue as to the Hessdalen Project created in 1983. Most all of us here know about it, and most of us aren’t experts. What about Bob, what’s his excuse?
Hessdalen light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bob failed to recognize the fact below in dismissing it's possibility.
Sharp and Grove developed 'receiverless' wireless voice transmission technologies for the Advanced Research Projects Agency at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in 1973. In the above mentioned journal entry to American Psychologist, Dr. Don Justesen reports that Sharp and Grove were readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among the single-syllable words for digits between 1 and 10. Justesen writes, "The sounds heard were not unlike those emitted by persons with an artificial voice box (Electrolarynx). Communication of more complex words and of sentences was not attempted because the averaged densities of energy required to transmit longer messages would approach the [still] current 10mW/cm² limit of safe exposure."[7]
Microwave auditory effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hoping that Bob may possibly be available, I think that we would all welcome his participation here. Perhaps, in the remotest of all possibilities of assisting in clearing up some of his misconceptions.
This man was practically copying and pasting the entire interview, with a lackluster performance that only the misinformed debunker could possibly accomplish.
On one final note here: I have the utmost respect for the Royal Society of London and the use of the scientific method. However, I cannot now find nearly as credible the MENSA Society.
Last edited by a moderator: