Scott Pelley pays no mind to witness

[Thoreau72]

Why would Scott Pelley, after spending almost 3 minutes on the phone with Sally Abdelmageed, and televising that conversation, completely disregard her testimony and instead repeat the official story?

If she (and others) described the shooters as 3 muscular and tall athletic men (probably white), why would Scott then say effectively, we have been told that one of the shooters was a woman?

Is Scott a story teller, or a journalist?

Thoughts?

 

[NonoBadDog]

Why would Scott Pelley, after spending almost 3 minutes on the phone with Sally Abdelmageed, and televising that conversation, completely disregard her testimony and instead repeat the official story?

If she (and others) described the shooters as 3 muscular and tall athletic men (probably white), why would Scott then say effectively, we have been told that one of the shooters was a woman?

Is Scott a story teller, or a journalist?

Thoughts?

My first though is that a link would be nice.

 

[Derp]

My first though is that a link would be nice.

Witness describes the San Bernardino shooting - Videos - CBS News

 

[Derp]

Why would Scott Pelley, after spending almost 3 minutes on the phone with Sally Abdelmageed, and televising that conversation, completely disregard her testimony and instead repeat the official story?

If she (and others) described the shooters as 3 muscular and tall athletic men (probably white), why would Scott then say effectively, we have been told that one of the shooters was a woman?

Is Scott a story teller, or a journalist?

Thoughts?

She didn't see his face and eye witness testimony is sh!t

 

[Thoreau72]

She didn't see his face and eye witness testimony is sh!t

I did not say and did not mean to infer that she had seen his face, and thanks for providing the link I should have provided, my bad.

But what I'd like to find out is why Scott would so quickly reject what an eye witness had seen? He did ask her twice about it being men, but it blew his mind so bad he had to go to break. :mrgreen: Why would he reject what she had said, while on the other hand, accept without question the statements of known and paid liars?

 

[NonoBadDog]

Witness describes the San Bernardino shooting - Videos - CBS News

Thanks.

 

[Thoreau72]

Essentially what Scott has demonstrated is willful ignorance, or perhaps willful gullibility.

That is, he was presented testimony from an eye witness, and deliberately chose to ignore it.

Cognitive Dissonance in action, on TV. A perfect demonstration of bias in the media and morbid incuriosity. Yes, we have the government we deserve.

 

[MaggieD]

Why would Scott Pelley, after spending almost 3 minutes on the phone with Sally Abdelmageed, and televising that conversation, completely disregard her testimony and instead repeat the official story?

If she (and others) described the shooters as 3 muscular and tall athletic men (probably white), why would Scott then say effectively, we have been told that one of the shooters was a woman?

Is Scott a story teller, or a journalist?

Thoughts?

Eye witness testimony is often unreliable. She thought she saw three men. Easy to make that mistake since there's a certain amount of bias at work. Not surprising. Tall is also relative without appropriate reference points.

 

[Thoreau72]

Eye witness testimony is often unreliable. She thought she saw three men. Easy to make that mistake since there's a certain amount of bias at work. Not surprising. Tall is also relative without appropriate reference points.

All that is true, but it seems to exclude the possibility that what the lady said is true and accurate.

Considering that another eye witness talking to a TV reporter, Juan Hernandez, described seeing 3 military-looking white males all dressed alike, pile into an SUV and drive quickly away, corroborates the essence of what the lady said. She saw them enter the building she worked in, he saw them leave the building and pile into an SUV.

Assuming you reject their stories, why do you reject their stories? I'm just curious.

 

[MaggieD]

All that is true, but it seems to exclude the possibility that what the lady said is true and accurate.

Considering that another eye witness talking to a TV reporter, Juan Hernandez, described seeing 3 military-looking white males all dressed alike, pile into an SUV and drive quickly away, corroborates the essence of what the lady said. She saw them enter the building she worked in, he saw them leave the building and pile into an SUV.

Assuming you reject their stories, why do you reject their stories? I'm just curious.

One could accept that testimony as gospel and figure the woman was #4. I'm quite sure authorities are all OVER every possibility. "We now know one of those terrorists was a woman," was a newscaster's comment. Not an indication of what directions the investigation is taking.

 

[Thoreau72]

One could accept that testimony as gospel and figure the woman was #4. I'm quite sure authorities are all OVER every possibility. "We now know one of those terrorists was a woman," was a newscaster's comment. Not an indication of what directions the investigation is taking.

"We now know..."

I would ask "how do you know", and Scott's answer would be "because some authority figure told me so".

If nobody reported 4 shooters, why do you advance that theory? What facts make you advance that theory?

Do you assume the Sally and Juan are lying? If so, why?

And why does Scott P give no weight to the woman's statement, but maximum weight to the statement of whichever authority figure told him a woman was involved?

 

[Excon]

But what I'd like to find out is why Scott would so quickly reject what an eye witness had seen? He did ask her twice about it being men, but it blew his mind so bad he had to go to break. :mrgreen: Why would he reject what she had said, while on the other hand, accept without question the statements of known and paid liars?

It doesn't look like rejection.
What it looks like is that he is informing his viewers of relevant information that they "just" learned.

That is called doing his job.

 

[Thoreau72]

It doesn't look like rejection.
What it looks like is that he is informing his viewers of relevant information that they "just" learned.

That is called doing his job.

How has Scott behaved since he learned this woman's testimony? Has he mentioned how her testimony very much contradicts what he had been told by authorities? Has he mentioned how her testimony is corroborated by the testimony of others also present for the event?

 

[Excon]

How has Scott behaved since he learned this woman's testimony? Has he mentioned how her testimony very much contradicts what he had been told by authorities? Has he mentioned how her testimony is corroborated by the testimony of others also present for the event?

1. This topic was on how he acted at the time. Not on how he has acted since. At the time he was doing his job and informing his viewers of relevant information that they "just" learned.

2. You do realize that the Official "story" is based on all received information, correct?
A few accounts that contradict the rest of the accounts are likely not correct and can be discounted as such.
The one guy who thought he saw three could be explained in different ways, especially as he saw them get into the same reported vehicle.

Anyways, I am not going to get into any stupid conspiracy theory with you. They caught the perps.

 

[Thoreau72]

1. This topic was on how he acted at the time. Not on how he has acted since. At the time he was doing his job and informing his viewers of relevant information that they "just" learned.

2. You do realize that the Official "story" is based on all received information, correct?
A few accounts that contradict the rest of the accounts are likely not correct and can be discounted as such.
The one guy who thought he saw three could be explained in different ways, especially as he saw them get into the same reported vehicle.

Anyways, I am not going to get into any stupid conspiracy theory with you. They caught the perps.

They didn't catch the perps. They caught, and killed, 2 patsies, and the American audience is far too gullible to understand that. The media plays the public perception like a fiddle. Cognitive Dissonance in action, as Pelley demonstrated, is never pretty.

 

[Excon]

They didn't catch the perps. They caught, and killed, 2 patsies, and the American audience is far too gullible to understand that. The media plays the public perception like a fiddle. Cognitive Dissonance in action, as Pelley demonstrated, is never pretty.

Like I said. I am not going to get into any stupid conspiracy theory with you. They caught the perps.

Period.

 

[Thoreau72]

Like I said. I am not going to get into any stupid conspiracy theory with you. They caught the perps.

Period.

Yeah, they caught "the perps" that nobody saw. They "caught" a 100 pound woman and her husband for media consumption, and the beat goes on. We most certainly have the government we deserve. The perps seen by witnesses have vanished from the narrative. :roll:

 

[Excon]

Wrong.

Like I said. I am not going to get into any stupid conspiracy theory with you. They caught the perps.

Period.​

 

[UtahBill]

Newscasters are not necessarily the same as journalists....most of them are just news readers.

 

[Thoreau72]

Newscasters are not necessarily the same as journalists....most of them are just news readers.

Too true. They are neither analytical thinkers nor detectives, they are merely story tellers.

 

[Thoreau72]

And now today, 7 months later, the clip showing Scott and Sally has been taken down from the internet, perfectly predictable.

 

[SMTA]

All that is true, but it seems to exclude the possibility that what the lady said is true and accurate.

Considering that another eye witness talking to a TV reporter, Juan Hernandez, described seeing 3 military-looking white males all dressed alike, pile into an SUV and drive quickly away, corroborates the essence of what the lady said. She saw them enter the building she worked in, he saw them leave the building and pile into an SUV.

Assuming you reject their stories, why do you reject their stories? I'm just curious.

Maybe he made a mistake;

Maybe he missed what was said;

Maybe he was listening g to his earpiece instead;

Maybe it was an oversight.

How perfect are you every day with everything you do?

 

[Thoreau72]

Maybe he made a mistake;

Maybe he missed what was said;

Maybe he was listening g to his earpiece instead;

Maybe it was an oversight.

How perfect are you every day with everything you do?

Maybe if a frog had wings he would not bump his ass when he jumps.

No sir, if you had the luxury of having viewed the 2 minute telephone interview, you would, assuming an open mind and normal curiosity, come to the same conclusion.

Scott's dissonance could not cope with the truth, and his corporate supervisors saw to it that the narrative went where "the authorities" wanted it to go. The fact that it has now been taken from public view proves that.

 

[SMTA]

Maybe if a frog had wings he would not bump his ass when he jumps.

No sir, if you had the luxury of having viewed the 2 minute telephone interview, you would, assuming an open mind and normal curiosity, come to the same conclusion.

Scott's dissonance could not cope with the truth, and his corporate supervisors saw to it that the narrative went where "the authorities" wanted it to go. The fact that it has now been taken from public view proves that.

Exactly what I thought - unable to admit your imperfect nature while casting stones at another.

I'll pass on the paranoid tinfoil philosophy.

 

[Thoreau72]

Exactly what I thought - unable to admit your imperfect nature while casting stones at another.

I'll pass on the paranoid tinfoil philosophy.

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.