|
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
End the life of Adam! Police scanner catches death sentence. Sandy hook drill. PIN!!!
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Monk Meat |
|
Post Content
|
I believe that a lot of times, the general public never gets the full story of events that happen. However, that's not to say that virtually everything is a cover up.
I would also say that often times, the initial news reports are completely wrong. They're wrong because they rely too much on rumors and "unconfirmed reports" just to get info out there. Every news agency wants to be the first to report on something. Even if it's wrong, they'll worry about it later.
Quoting: Monk Meat Lets use 9/11 as an example of your theory... the initial theory of the collapse was the pancake theory (which was scientifically proven to be impossible based on video evidence being present... the expected didn't match the outcome)... many years later the official story has changed so many times it's not even funny (last I heard the official story was pressurized steam... steam... really?). You would be surprised how many "early" reports contain VITAL information that is later changed and never looked at again (down the memory hole)... and that's how we let them get away with this crap. We give them "all the time in the world" to iron out the wrinkles in their "official" story and present the story to us on a pre-approved silver platter.Sorry to get off topic... OP I agree with you and I have listened to this recording many times now and I can't hear anything even close to what the doubters are saying... The M at the end is pretty muffled but the rest is clear as a bell "End the life of Ada(m)". Research conducted by Elizabeth Loftus in the 1970sdemonstrated the misinformation effect – a powerful phenomenon resulting in memory distortion (for areview see Loftus, 2005). In a now classic experiment,Loftus and Palmer (1974) presented participants a short film of a car accident and subsequently tested participant recall for details of the incident. Importantly, they found that simply changing one word in a question pertaining to the speed the car was traveling when the accident occurred resulted in significantly different estimates of speed. Specifically, participants asked to estimate what speed the car was traveling at when it contacted the other vehicle provided slower speed estimates (31.8 mph) than those asked to estimate the speed of the car when it smashed into the other vehicle (40.5 mph). Including the verb ‘smashed’ in the question also led to increased false reports of witnessing broken glass at the scene of the accident (no broken glass was ever shown). Several hundred experiments since have demonstrated the misinformation phenomenon, explored boundary conditions of the effect and served the development of theoretical explanations. More pertinent to eyewitness identification accuracy is an emerging body of work on the impact of co-witness influence on memory. In a recent survey 86 per cent of real eyewitnesses discussed their memory with a co-witness who was present at the witnessed event (Paterson & Kemp, 2006). Witnesses to an event may share the same experience but their individual recall of the event may differ for many reasons,including naturally occurring differences in attention paid to various details of the event, differences in spatial or temporal location at the scene or perceived differences in ability to recall those details (Gabbert et al ., 2006).Research amply demonstrates that the most likely out-come when two witnesses discuss their memories is thattheir accounts of the witnessed event become more simi-lar and, hence, seemingly corroborative [ link to www.scribd.com]
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for reporting:
|
