Is it me or is this site in its death throes?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Bowser, Jul 17, 2017.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Give what up? Allowing myself to be infracted and flamed simply for making too good of an argument? That's not going to happen. It's called standing up for what's right.

    You know it's funny how you conceive the solution here to be me just going away. I wonder why that is? Why is it so important to you that I quit posting here? I have as much a right to post here as you do.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Only the first 10 forums fall under science. All the rest of the forums are nonscience forums. This has been made clear repeatedly. Why are you still behind on this?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    This is your mistaken belief that here ghosts etc must be discussed with scientific perspective. There is no such requirement.

    And please note that a new science idea may require back up but what kind of back up you are expecting when discussing ghosts?

    Infact this is a fundamental problem with non-believers, they have been told time and again that matters which science does not admit as on date, cannot have rationally accepted back up. So please do not see ghostly matters and faith related matters from a science glass.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    This also shows your lack of understanding of human psychology. A person who believes in super natural etc will assert that as fact only. It's very simple, there are categories, you can add more..

    1. Those who do not believe in these aspects and they want scientific proof before budging from their stand....likes of you.

    2. Those who do not care and leave it uncontested beyond a point for the shear futility of the argument from the either side....many many in this category.

    3. Those who believe.

    Category 3 people will assert these matters as fact, despite the apparent objection and ridicule by #1 and by #2 (lesser degree).

    Learn to live with it.
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    By your logic and assertion... and I'm going to go back to something I've seen bantered about before... if I were to believe I am an Apache Attack Helicopter, you would have to "learn to live with it". If I were to believe I had the right to squat in your home while you were on vacation (leaving the place in the same condition as it was when you left), you would have to "deal with it". If I were to believe that "vaccines were the spawn of Satan" and thus didn't inoculate my children, you would have to "learn to live with it" (even while it left your kids exposed to potentially deadly diseases).

    I'm sure you can see where that line of logic breaks down... so why should it be good enough in this instance (especially since the site rules specifically counter indicate it?)
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    The forum is not dying. It is the summer holidays. Traffic always dies down at such periods.

    What is for sure is MR's contributions do not add to its health. Those of people like Dave do, on the other hand.
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Except the vaccine example the other two are irrelevant.

    Vaccine has been scientifically proven like that earth is not flat. So if a poster comes and says vaccine has satanic piss then he can be countered with science behind.

    You see there is a difference, for vaccine the response is that it is science, but for ghost the response is that it is not science. Vaccine you are proving that it is science but for ghosts you want MRs to prove that it is science. Not done.
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Well, they are unreliable. And you are once again, attempting to say I have declared something that I have not actually said in the past.

    In cases where eyewitness testimony is to be presented before the court, lawyers, and even paralegals, will often interview the eyewitnesses. Why do you think that happens?

    Look at the Brown case, that I presented earlier in this thread. Multiple eyewitnesses. Every single one of them, who saw the exact same event at the exact same time, described something different. Why do you think that happens? And would you consider them to be reliable witnesses?

    I have lost count of the amount of times I have read statements given to the police initially, then to investigating detectives, and then to the DPP and discounted those witnesses, because each and every single time for the high majority of cases, those statements will differ. And I am not just talking about minor differences, but often, differences that show a level of embellishment that for the majority of the time, what they are claiming on their 3rd telling, does not even match any evidence found at the scene.

    Eyewitness testimony is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the US. Why do you think that is? Because it is so reliable?

    Human memory is fragile and malleable. More than 2,000 studies on eyewitnesses in recent decades have determined that recollections are prone to decay, distortion, and suggestion. Honest, well-meaning people often simply misremember or misreport what they have seen. In one 1974 experiment, for example, more than two thousand people were shown a 13-second video clip of a mugging, followed by a six-man lineup. Just 14 percent of viewers correctly identified the perpetrator — a success rate lower than that of random guessing. In a 1999 study, 150 college students watched videos of a shooting and then of a five-man lineup. Every one of them identified a suspect, even though the culprit was not pictured. Factors such as fear, poor lighting, the presence of a weapon during a crime, and the passage of time have all been shown to cause mistakes in identifications — even when the witness is the victim of the crime. Witnesses are particularly inaccurate, studies show, when asked to remember the facial features of someone of a different race.

    The mention of those 2,000 studies is important. But being a paralegal, you will already know what and why those 2,000 studies is important, yes?

    The court in that instance, literally set a landmark decision in regards to eyewitness testimony, after studying 2,000 studies in a separate hearing by a Special Master was conducted, where many scientists, legal scholars and psychologists testified about the veracity of eyewitness testimony. The studies mentioned above in the quote, were looked at by the Special Master. That landmark decision literally altered the legal landscape of New Jersey and in many areas of the US legal community, and recommended that not only should police change procedure in how eyewitnesses are to be spoken to, interviewed, do line-up's, time, distance.. It also required that judges now have to instruct juries on the fact that eyewitness testimony they may hear during a trial, may not be reliable and explain why and it also set standards for how judges are to assess eyewitness testimony.

    As a paralegal, you will, of course, know the case of which I speak. In case you are unaware of it, I am talking about State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 287 (2011).

    Chief Justice Rabner, as you should know as a paralegal (especially if you were interviewing eyewitnesses), after commenting on the prevalent of eyewitness misidentification, noted that eyewitness misidentification were a contributing 3 out of 5 cases of DNA exoneration's in New Jersey alone. But as he also noted, DNA exoneration's are quite rare and the Special Master also looked at studies to try to gauge how often innocent people were wrongly identified. So they looked at 4 different experiments that had been conducted through the course of the 80's and 90's.. 3 of which involved clerks in small stores and one, bank tellers:

    Across the four experiments, researchers gathered data from more than 500 identifications. Dr. Penrod testified that on average, 42% of clerks made correct identifications, 41% identified photographs of innocent fillers, and 17% chose to identify no one. See Brigham et al., supra, at 677; Krafka & Penrod, supra, at 64-65; Pigott et al., supra, at 86-87; Platz & Hosch, supra, at 978. Those numbers, like the results from the Sacramento and London studies, reveal high levels of misidentifications.

    In two of the studies, researchers showed some clerks target-absent arrays -- lineups that purposely excluded the perpetrator and contained only fillers. See Krafka & Penrod, supra, at 64-65; Pigott et al., supra, at 86. In those experiments, Dr. Penrod testified that 64% of eyewitnesses made no identification, but 36% picked a foil. See Krafka & Penrod, supra, at 64; Pigott et al., supra, at 86. Those field experiments suggest that when the true perpetrator is not in the lineup, eyewitnesses may nonetheless select an innocent suspect more than one-third of the time.

    Any one of the above studies, standing alone, reveals a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications

    [State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 287 (2011)]​
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Once again, you leave out the word "often". You have this manner that is literally inherently dishonest.

    I have to ask, do you understand what I meant when I said "more often than not, wholly unreliable"? The reason I ask is because you keep trying to alter what I said and inserting different words with completely different meanings, based on your own interpretations of what you think I said. I asked you earlier, to provide a link to where I had apparently declared that eyewitness testimony was "bullshit by its nature", and you are yet to provide that link. Instead, you have tried to backpedal, you incorrectly attempted to interpret my very clear words, an interpretation that is so biased on your part, that the context of what I had originally said in a different thread about eyewitness testimony, was completely different by your telling of it or recounting it, if you will.

    I have provided pages and pages of studies, reports, papers, which detail just how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Do you have a problem with viewing links? Is it a problem, perhaps, because you do not know how to click on links in post and read the contents of those links?

    The irony of this comment from you is that you have failed to provide anything that supports any of your arguments in this thread. Instead, you have relied on your biased interpretations of what you think was said, and you have spent the rest of that time whining about your own biased interpretation. The biggest worry is that you then advised you had worked as a paralegal, who interviewed eyewitnesses for the prosecution in California... When you have displayed a worrying trend of biased memory and interpretation, that literally altered what actually happened in your retelling of it.

    You should have a read of page 30 of Chief Justice Rabner's decision in State v. Henderson (2011), the part about relative judgement.. It applies to you and what you are doing here, quite well.

    I think you have failed to understand the biggest problem with eyewitness testimony.

    In the past, the courts have usually expected or relied on juries to be able to tell when an eyewitness was lying. The problem with eyewitness testimony, even the unreliable ones, even the ones that have changed the content of what they experienced, usually are not even aware they are doing it. Ergo, when they testify before a jury, they are telling "the truth", in that their memory will naturally alter, because various things will affect what they remember, even if they experienced it themselves. Stress, for example, can greatly affect a person's memory. So a jury cannot know if someone is lying, because the eyewitness themselves, does not know or grasp what their brain has done to their memory.

    And yes, for a large portion of the human population, reports from personal experience will be unreliable, because without their even meaning to, their recollection or memory of what they experience will be altered. Which is why, as thousands of reports have shown consistently, that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. And it is why Chief Rabner's decision is so important, because for the first time, this issue has been directly addressed in a court room in the US, and something done about it. It is why Courts in New Jersey, at least, are now instructed to ensure that judges inform juries that the eyewitness testimony they heard during the trial or proceedings, may not be reliable as it will be affected by time, bias, experience, stress, lighting, weather, distance, etc. And it is why judges are now legally required to assess the validity of eyewitness testimony, especially when police line-up's and identification is concerned, because of just how easy it is to taint said identification.. Because as Chief Justice Rabner noted, the number of people who are wrongfully convicted each year due to misidentification could very well be in the thousands, and that is supported by the 2000 studies they looked at alone..

    And yeah, given the countless of studies I have read, my involvement in the innocence project here in Australia in the past, I can say with quite a bit of certainty that more often than not, eyewitness testimony will be unreliable. And if you want a prime example of that, read the countless of eyewitnesses in the Brown case and just see how their own personal experiences, bias, racial bias, have affected what they actually saw.
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    That's deliberately deceptive and proves nothing. If you are lied to that the suspect is in the line up, ofcourse you are prone to make a mistake.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    How about you stop trolling and flaming the situation to make it worse than it is..

    You know, this is not going to help you at all.

    If you had posted such a good argument, there would never have been a need to request links, because you would have already provided support for your claims about eyewitness testimony. Alas, here we are and you are yet to provide said evidence about your claims in regards to eyewitness testimony. Instead, you have just decided to troll the thread even more.

    Paranoia is not going to help you either.

    Do you know what makes him different to you, MR? He abides by the rules and backs up his arguments with scientific evidence. You do not do this.

    Which is why we are here and which is why I am still waiting for you to provide some evidence to back up your claims about eyewitness evidence.

    You were told by admin that your failure to support your claims with actual evidence and your failure and refusal to provide any form of critical analysis, not to mention your refusal to even allow others to critically analyse what your post and your refusal and failure to even discuss it with others on this site when you post, was not acceptable. It may be the "non-science" section of this website, but it still falls under the banner of "Sciforums" and the exact same rules that apply in the science sub-forums, apply across the entirety of the forum and website.

    You have been making factual claims and have failed to provide anything but anecdotal evidence to support those claims. That is not acceptable. Not only that, you refuse and pitch a fit when anyone attempts any form of critical analysis of what you claim is factual and you refuse to read or even acknowledge studies that literally prove you wrong and you keep demanding more evidence from others, while failing to provide any yourself and then, you claim you are 'winning' or have made a good argument. Sure, that might fly with some Trump voters, but it isn't going to fly here.

    I am going to go to bed, which means that you will have a few extra hours to provide said evidence. When I wake up in the morning, if you have not posted said evidence [and there are countless of scientific journals that have published countless of papers and studies about eyewitness testimony, and seeing that you have made so many factual claims about the reliability of eyewitnesses, it stands to reason that you are doing so because you have something to back up the factual claim you keep making about it and thus, should be easy for you to find said evidence in a variety of journals, papers, online and link them], then you will be moderated. I know, you are going to wave your hands in the air and claim that I am threatening to ban you as you have already tried to do. Keep in mind that I have said that you will be moderated, which can mean a various number of things that is not 'just a ban from the forum'. So calm yourself.

    Provide said links and we'll all be hunky dory. This is not an unreasonable request. I am not asking you to draw the blood of your first born. I am merely asking you to provide some studies that support your claims about eyewitness testimony. Should be easy for you, considering how many times you have asserted that it is reliable and how you have claimed that the thousands of studies and cases that showed how it was so unreliable is wrong and apparently my "insane thesis". Because no one in their right mind, would claim something like what you have been doing in this thread about eyewitness testimony, and not be able to provide even a single study to support their factual claims. And you are in your right mind, aren't you, MR? So it should be exceptionally easy for you to find studies that state that eyewitness testimony is very reliable, as you have repeatedly claimed in this thread.

  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    There is nothing in the rules saying I have to post just evidence. Here's the rule for the umpteenth time:

    "Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues."

    That has all been provided in this thread. The evidence was in the solid examples from real life refuting your ridiculous claim that eyewitness observation is unreliable. Other posts had logical arguments and explanations. That totally meets rules requirements.

    So your threat to moderate is yet another display of mod power abuse. Moderate away. I don't care. That's the only way you can win debates here anyway.

    BTW..why aren't you moderating Yazata? He's making the same case I am.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    I am keen to know about reliability of eye witness account in following cases, assuming no dishonesty..

    1. An eye witness who is just recording his observation. (Consider the historical recordings of centuries ago by many)

    2. An eye witness account in the court room under questioning by both prosecution and defence lawyers.

    I feel in #2 there is an element of stress,even if witness is not interested in the case which is highly unlikely, the chances of making out the story or exaggerations cannot be ruled out. I think there could be issues with eye witness testimony if not corroborated.
  17. Bells Staff Member



    Do you understand why someone picking someone out of a line up, should not be told that the perpetrator is in the line up?

    Do you understand why someone picking someone out of a line up, should never, ever be prompted in such a fashion?

    They weren't lied to, MR. What the study showed is that people will make mistakes and pick innocent people out of line ups, because their memory will simply point out people who look similar to what they remember, even if that person is not the perpetrator. And that is the problem and is an inherent issue with eyewitness misidentification.. I mean, far out, did you not read a single link that was posted in this thread?
  18. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Yeah... except that it ant bein run that way an thats the prollem.!!!
    Yeah... thats the usual go-to Bull-Sht thats causin the prollem.!!!
    Change the rules... allow people to discuss gosts an ufo in what ever way they want to.!!!

    An remember:::
    That woud grately simplify mod work an make everbody happy an more traffic for Sciforums... its a win Win WIN.!!!

    What the hells rong wit tryin that.!!!
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    Those rules were posted to you, numerous times. You were also advised by an administrator of this website, that your behaviour is not acceptable and if you continue, you will leave this forum. Critical analysis involves presenting evidence, MR. You were told this and you were told that your anecdotal claims, such as what you have made in this thread about eyewitness testimony, requires critical analysis, which involves supporting your claims with actual evidence. I'm not talking about woowoo UFO's here, but about something that is widely discussed in science, psychology, the legal profession and is widely studied in depth and has been for decades. You have repeatedly claimed that it is reliable and you prattled on some vague anecdotal beliefs, without any evidence whatsoever.

    So you either post as per this site's rules, or you withdraw your claims. That's your out.

    If you wish to challenge the studies that have been posted.. If you wish to argue that the decision handed down by Chief Justice Rabner of the New Jersey Supreme Court is wrong because you think the thousands of studies they looked at in their decision is wrong, then you had better have the science to back it up. Because the Court ruled in accordance to known science. You claim they are wrong? Then back it up with actual science as well. Or withdraw. Fail to do so, and I will moderate you when I log on in the morning.

    Again, this is not an unreasonable request. You have been given more than enough chances, MR. If you keep trolling and spitting on them, perhaps for your personal pride, or because you are just making things up as you go along because if you admit otherwise, then it might put your factual claims you have made about your personal beliefs on other subjects, invalid.. I don't particularly care. You either back up your claims or you will face moderation. Admin drew that line quite well in the sand for you. Perhaps you should look down at said sand and see that that line is right in front of you.
  20. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    I see that mods are still workin on ther egos by arguein just-to-be-right about petty stuff insted of changin the gost ufo forum rules that woud put an end to threds like this...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Magical Realist likes this.
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Likewise, the issue with eye-witness testimony has been scientifically (and repeatedly) proven. Likewise, much of this paranormal stuff has been thoroughly debunked by reputable science... yet you wish to give MR a pass on those?
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    I already backed my claims thoroughly and you know it. And no, Admin said nothing about providing evidence. They only said to critically analyze anecdotes of the paranormal. That's all James R told me to do. It has nothing to do with anything happening here. You're simply lying about what he said and what the rules say as an excuse to moderate. Moderate to your hearts content. You're not getting shit from me.
  23. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Bein right about a rule is more important to mods than changin said rule an makin Sciforums more successful an fun for everbody... Sad...

Share This Page