Witnesses

[Evan Burton]

In a thread on the JFK section, Jack relates some work done by Dr Costella with regard to JFK witnesses. When questioned on this, one of his replies included the statement:

Rather than search for inconsistencies, I suggest looking for CONSISTENCY.

As I recall, there were 56 witnesses who said the LIMO STOPPED.

There were several remarkable statements I was previously unaware of.

Jack

Source

This made me think about how people accept witness statements when it suits them, but disregard them when it goes against their personal beliefs, etc.

Jack has shown opinions ranging from questioning to distrust to utter disbelief of the "official" 9/11 sequence of events:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10786

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10472

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10338

Based on his apparent reliance on witness statements with regard to the JFK assasination, I questioned his 9/11 stance when there were as many - and more - witnesses who saw an aircraft strike the Pentagon on 11 SEP 01. There are similar witness accounts - as well as film footage - of aircraft (specifically two) striking the World Trade Centre on that same date.

Rather than sidetrack the thread jack started in the JFK section, I thought a discussion about witnesses would be better served here.

Lets talk about witnesses.

Are they reliable?

Who makes a reliable witness?

How many coinciding witness statements does it take for them to be be 'irrefutable'?

Does difference between witness statements make them unreliable?

and anything else that you think might be relevant to the thread....

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In a thread on the JFK section, Jack relates some work done by Dr Costella with regard to JFK witnesses. When questioned on this, one of his replies included the statement:

Rather than search for inconsistencies, I suggest looking for CONSISTENCY.

As I recall, there were 56 witnesses who said the LIMO STOPPED.

There were several remarkable statements I was previously unaware of.

Jack

Source

This made me think about how people accept witness statements when it suits them, but disregard them when it goes against their personal beliefs, etc.

Jack has shown opinions ranging from questioning to distrust to utter disbelief of the "official" 9/11 sequence of events:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10786

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10472

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10338

Based on his apparent reliance on witness statements with regard to the JFK assasination, I questioned his 9/11 stance when there were as many - and more - witnesses who saw an aircraft strike the Pentagon on 11 SEP 01. There are similar witness accounts - as well as film footage - of aircraft (specifically two) striking the World Trade Centre on that same date.

Rather than sidetrack the thread jack started in the JFK section, I thought a discussion about witnesses would be better served here.

Lets talk about witnesses.

Are they reliable?

Who makes a reliable witness?

How many coinciding witness statements does it take for them to be be 'irrefutable'?

Does difference between witness statements make them unreliable?

and anything else that you think might be relevant to the thread....

ARE THEY RELIABLE.... During the witch trials of the 16th, and 17 Centuries, many innocent people were put to death solely on the testimony of witnesess, sometimes the evidence was tainted by personal dislike, or was motivated by greed, but most of the witnesess neither disliked the accused, or stood to gain by their execution, they were suffering from a form of mass hysteria. Indeed as the aberant psychology took hold in a community, many would even claim that they were themselves witches. However if over 60 independant witnesess told me that a large plane had collided with the pentagon, and the physical evidence backed this up, I can think of no reason for disbelieving them.

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

I have no idea about the JFK witnesses and cannot pretend that I do.

The 9/11 witnesses are different, though, IMO. No-one has changed their story appreciably from that originally given. Many independent researchers - both pro and anti "truth movement" - have spoken to them, and their accounts are the same.

No-one has even hinted at being 'pressured' to alter their account in any way.

If you are aware of any such pressure, please let me know.

There are a number of different groups within the 9/11 'truth' movement: one section say that a missile of some type hit the Pentagon rather than an airliner. I call these people the 'no planers'. I would like to know how these people reconcile their beliefs with the huge number of people who SAW an airliner hit the Pentagon.

This is not a case of being asked if a man with a hat was seen at a place; if someone moved left or rather right.

This is about whether a huge airliner was seen to hit the Pentagon.

Your JFK allusion is appreciated but not relevant.