• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scott Pelley pays no mind to witness

Thoreau72 said:
And you will pass on seeking the truth too, happy to think as you're told by the authorities. Bravo!!! Yes, ignorance is bliss. Keep your fear goggles firmly over your eyes.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between intelligently looking for truth, and being a truther conspiracy theorist who is driven by paranoia, frothing at the mouth while turning over every rock in a wild frenzy, while wearing tinfoil.

I subscribe to the former.

Please continue to enjoy the latter.
 
SMTA said:
There is a huge difference between intelligently looking for truth, and being a truther conspiracy theorist who is driven by paranoia, frothing at the mouth while turning over every rock in a wild frenzy, while wearing tinfoil.

I subscribe to the former.

Please continue to enjoy the latter.
Click to expand...

I suspect you and Scott Pelley feel very much the same way. Search for truth by sweeping the eye witness testimony from a woman who worked there under the rug. Got it! You and Scott are "open-minded" seekers of truth. :lol:

Always place "what the authorities have told us" over what anybody on the scene might have to say. A pair of Columbos, you two.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I suspect you and Scott Pelley feel very much the same way. Search for truth by sweeping the eye witness testimony from a woman who worked there under the rug. Got it! You and Scott are "open-minded" seekers of truth. :lol:

Always place "what the authorities have told us" over what anybody on the scene might have to say. A pair of Columbos, you two.
Click to expand...

Your suspicions are as wrong as your logic.
 
SMTA said:
Your suspicions are as wrong as your logic.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting it is superior "logic" to completely ignore the testimony of an eye witness? Or just superior "police work" or "journalism"? :lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
Are you suggesting it is superior "logic" to completely ignore the testimony of an eye witness? Or just superior "police work" or "journalism"? :lamo
Click to expand...

Substandard tinfoil application.
 
SMTA said:
You have proven that you understand very little here.
Click to expand...

Just to bring you up to speed, ZY and Mark F over at the Conspiracy Theories section have now provided a link to where the interview actually still does exist. They are much more skilled in the cyber world than I am, thank goodness.

Nonetheless, the substantive question still remains: why did the "journalists" and the authorities disregard her testimony?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Just to bring you up to speed, ZY and Mark F over at the Conspiracy Theories section have now provided a link to where the interview actually still does exist. They are much more skilled in the cyber world than I am, thank goodness.

Nonetheless, the substantive question still remains: why did the "journalists" and the authorities disregard her testimony?
Click to expand...

She was mistaken and the other witness testimonies were more or less the same?
 
zyzygy said:
She was mistaken and the other witness testimonies were more or less the same?
Click to expand...

That's a question. Why do you think she was mistaken? Was she hallucinating, or did 3 cops open the door to Building 3 and open fire? Why did the other witness testimony support hers?
 
Thoreau72 said:
That's a question. Why do you think she was mistaken? Was she hallucinating, or did 3 cops open the door to Building 3 and open fire? Why did the other witness testimony support hers?
Click to expand...

What other witness? You couldn't find a simple link on google so how do you know about this witness?
 
zyzygy said:
What other witness? You couldn't find a simple link on google so how do you know about this witness?
Click to expand...

It was from Infowars, 8 months ago. I say again ZY, I save money when I can, I save brass when shooting, but I don't save links, mostly because I don't really know how to save links. I think the reporters name was Nick something, and the fellow he interviewed had a common Hispanic name like Hernandez.

I'm betting you would not believe it even if I could find it, and as I've already stated, it doesn't matter. History has been written, the public was terrorized in the process, muslims have been vilified, and the GWOT marches on in all its fraud.

I like to observe human behavior, and what's interesting about this exchange this morning is that 3 different posters refuse to address the substance--nobody will touch the subject of WHY the authorities did not follow up on that testimony, and why CBS and its mad journalistic skills did not follow up on it.

Why do 3 different posters in one morning decline to address that? Now THAT is what I find interesting. ;)
 
Scott Pelley is an ass.

I just wanted to say that for the record.
 
Bump for radcen
 
Thoreau72 said:
Bump for radcen
Click to expand...
We interact a lot, so you should know that I do NOT give LE an automatic benefit of the doubt. And I believe that people who do are naive. I know this notion offends some, but they lie just like any other normal human being, and that's all they are, human beings.

That being said, in this case, and after having read the entire thread, I am going to give them and Pelley the benefit of the doubt. One, it was a very chaotic situation. Two, while LE will often lie to serve their own agenda, I don't sense that was going on here. Three, as others have mentioned, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Yet they're still considered the "gold standard" in a courtroom, even though various innocence projects put them as the top factor in false convictions. Bottom line, I'm not seeing enough to sway me.

And maybe my own anecdotal experience factors in. About 15 years ago I witnessed a shooting while driving down the street. I decided to stop and offer my account. As I was giving my information to the officer I was within hearing distance of two other people doing the same. One of us said the shooter was wearing a white shirt, one a blue shirt, one a red shirt. There was only one shooter. That intrigued me, and I have since done a lot of reading on the subject (true crime documentaries are a passion of mine), but that drove home to me that people quite often do not see what they think they saw.

Now maybe Pelley could have engaged her a bit more in depth, but I am not going to fault him for taking it with a grain of salt.
 
radcen said:
We interact a lot, so you should know that I do NOT give LE an automatic benefit of the doubt. And I believe that people who do are naive. I know this notion offends some, but they lie just like any other normal human being, and that's all they are, human beings.

That being said, in this case, and after having read the entire thread, I am going to give them and Pelley the benefit of the doubt. One, it was a very chaotic situation. Two, while LE will often lie to serve their own agenda, I don't sense that was going on here. Three, as others have mentioned, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Yet they're still considered the "gold standard" in a courtroom, even though various innocence projects put them as the top factor in false convictions. Bottom line, I'm not seeing enough to sway me.

And maybe my own anecdotal experience factors in. About 15 years ago I witnessed a shooting while driving down the street. I decided to stop and offer my account. As I was giving my information to the officer I was within hearing distance of two other people doing the same. One of us said the shooter was wearing a white shirt, one a blue shirt, one a red shirt. There was only one shooter. That intrigued me, and I have since done a lot of reading on the subject (true crime documentaries are a passion of mine), but that drove home to me that people quite often do not see what they think they saw.

Now maybe Pelley could have engaged her a bit more in depth, but I am not going to fault him for taking it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Maybe I've watched too many Columbo movies ;) but I give every person the assumption that he is telling the truth as best he knows it. Later on, if the person or the story proves otherwise, then I change.

So, I'm assuming what the lady said was true, and that she did think the 3 men approaching were part of one the training exercises that took place at that facility on a regular basis, it turns out.

She was telling the truth as best she knew it, and Pelley showed an acute anxiety reaction to the truth. He showed the classic signs of acute cognitive dissonance. He heard information that conflicted with what he had already been told.

It's just human behavior for me. :mrgreen:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Maybe I've watched too many Columbo movies ;) but I give every person the assumption that he is telling the truth as best he knows it. Later on, if the person or the story proves otherwise, then I change.

So, I'm assuming what the lady said was true, and that she did think the 3 men approaching were part of one the training exercises that took place at that facility on a regular basis, it turns out.

She was telling the truth as best she knew it, and Pelley showed an acute anxiety reaction to the truth. He showed the classic signs of acute cognitive dissonance. He heard information that conflicted with what he had already been told.

It's just human behavior for me. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

And there's the key aspect, "as best as he knows it". That's fine, and I agree completely that most people truly and honestly believe they are indeed telling the truth. I'm not suggesting people are lying, as lying requires intent to deceive. But, stand back and be objective, it has been shown that people are incredibly faulty in their memories. Pelley, not being at the incident at the time it happened, actually had the ability to be more objective.

ETA: What people hear first, especially from an authoritative source that that person respects, is a factor, too. I don't want to come off as dismissing that.
 
I'll add this to the mix: he was wearing an earpiece and perhaps he was being fed questions or other information that refuted her account?

Thoreau72 is this thread really about Pelley and paid liars?
 
radcen said:
And there's the key aspect, "as best as he knows it". That's fine, and I agree completely that most people truly and honestly believe they are indeed telling the truth. I'm not suggesting people are lying, as lying requires intent to deceive. But, stand back and be objective, it has been shown that people are incredibly faulty in their memories. Pelley, not being at the incident at the time it happened, actually had the ability to be more objective.

ETA: What people hear first, especially from an authoritative source that that person respects, is a factor, too. I don't want to come off as dismissing that.
Click to expand...

Faulty with her memory? She saw the guys approaching, I think from the second floor perspective, thought they were supposed to be there for TX until they actually opened fire. At which time she freaked out and ran to cover, locked the door and called the cops.

Pelley's behavior is comical in a clinical way, but the behavior of the cops in not pursuing that line for investigation is the telling part. Why would they be so bloody incurious about what she said? And testimony from another present that partly corroborated her testimony? Why do the cops ignore that?

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding so much. It's all hindsight now, after all the drama with the cell phone. Such a charade.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Faulty with her memory? She saw the guys approaching, I think from the second floor perspective, thought they were supposed to be there for TX until they actually opened fire. At which time she freaked out and ran to cover, locked the door and called the cops.

Pelley's behavior is comical in a clinical way, but the behavior of the cops in not pursuing that line for investigation is the telling part. Why would they be so bloody incurious about what she said? And testimony from another present that partly corroborated her testimony? Why do the cops ignore that?

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding so much. It's all hindsight now, after all the drama with the cell phone. Such a charade.
Click to expand...

Yes, faulty with her memory. Did you not read my anecdote? Did you not read the other information regarding the legitimate issues with eyewitness accounts? It's also not uncommon at all for people's memories to be suggestive, either from LE or other witnesses. You're not being a little too conspiracy theor-ish, are you?
 
radcen said:
Yes, faulty with her memory. Did you not read my anecdote? Did you not read the other information regarding the legitimate issues with eyewitness accounts? It's also not uncommon at all for people's memories to be suggestive, either from LE or other witnesses. You're not being a little too conspiracy theor-ish, are you?
Click to expand...

You know that I am, and apologies if you're offended, but this story makes no sense in a number of ways, and if Columbo were going back to investigate it AFTER THE FACT, he would start with that lady. This is suspicious behavior on the part of the authorities.

Full disclosure sir, on that day I was packing for a four day trip, and so was in the house with the TV on, something I do not do much. So, I ended up watching the coverage for maybe two hours or more. And as I was going back and forth around the house I caught momentary glimpses of the coverage. And I thought at the time that it appeared to be completely theatrical as I watched it on TV. Much of it from overhead perspective and I used to fly helicopters with cameras. So I wondered on that day about how odd it looked.

Then I was gone for 4 days and hardly watched TV. So yes, I do feel something strange about that case.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You know that I am, and apologies if you're offended, but this story makes no sense in a number of ways, and if Columbo were going back to investigate it AFTER THE FACT, he would start with that lady. This is suspicious behavior on the part of the authorities.

Full disclosure sir, on that day I was packing for a four day trip, and so was in the house with the TV on, something I do not do much. So, I ended up watching the coverage for maybe two hours or more. And as I was going back and forth around the house I caught momentary glimpses of the coverage. And I thought at the time that it appeared to be completely theatrical as I watched it on TV. Much of it from overhead perspective and I used to fly helicopters with cameras. So I wondered on that day about how odd it looked.

Then I was gone for 4 days and hardly watched TV. So yes, I do feel something strange about that case.
Click to expand...
Offended? No, not even. Just wanting to keep things properly framed in context.

I would not take a lack of public announcement that their statements weren't seriously considered as being that their statements weren't seriously considered.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I absolutely LOVE Columbo! We watch it almost every Sunday night on MeTV.
 
radcen said:
Offended? No, not even. Just wanting to keep things properly framed in context.

I would not take a lack of public announcement that their statements weren't seriously considered as being that their statements weren't seriously considered.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I absolutely LOVE Columbo! We watch it almost every Sunday night on MeTV.
Click to expand...

The lack of a public announcement, combined with the fact that many public announcements regarding the guilt of the 2 dead persons were broadcast 24/7, combined with the highly improbable ability of a woman weighing less than 100 pounds to carry enough ammo and weapons to do what was done, and many other reasons, lead the Columbo in me to be most skeptical of the official story and the theatrical qualities to what I saw on TV that day.

Add in that another non-related witness saw and described the same characters leaving the building, and it's really hard to believe "what the authorities told us".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom