The scary, the strange, the paranormal...

[Andy BB]

Another interesting factoid.

There are approximately - on average - something like 100 billion stars in a galaxy. And about 100 billion galaxies. That makes for an awful lot of stars. On that basis alone, it seems to make a reasonable guess that life has evolved elsewhere in the universe. (and thats excluding the mult-universe theories postulated under string theory and others). And its also conceivable that such life doesn't necessarily have to follow "our" pattern of carbon-based life, or even oxygen breathers. Research into aquatic fumaroles prove that life can exist and develop without sunlight or breathable oxygen.

So it would be unreasonable to doubt other life in this universe - odds seem to favour it. I wouldn't even rule out FTL flight - scientists have calculated that wormhole travel is feasible, although it'd take the power of several galaxies' stars to make the sums work! But who knows what they'll come up with in the future?

Have they been here though? Certainly there's no hard and fast evidence to support it - even assuming that other intelligences have FTL. consider the basic facts -for example, how would they even know we are here? We've only been pushing out electronic signals for 100 years or so, and more than 99.99999999% of all star systems are a lot further out than 100 light years!

As far as eye-witness evidence goes, it is massively unreliable, however keen juries are on it. Although not a policeman, I've investigated hundreds of frauds over the last 30-odd years, taking a number to court. And I'd never rely purely on a single eye-witness. There have been a number of studies of eye-witness evidence, including a famous case during a lecture to law students. A particular "crime" was performed in front of them (the students were given no advance warning of this), and their recollections were all over the place. Most amazingly, no-one spotted the man in a gorilla suit that made an appearance during the furore, all subsequently denying this had even occurred when told until shown a video of the event!

Actually, I've managed to merge two different tests in the above - one of people failing to notice a "gorilla" on campus, and another staged "crime" in front of students who all managed to contradict each other on what exactly happened. Apologies - but it does go to show how memory plays tricks!

 

[Andy BB]

Another example

U.S. Navy Study: Eyewitnesses Unreliable

Abram Katz , New Haven Register --Science Editor
06/21/2004

Victims who get a good long look at violent criminals are unlikely to identify them accurately later, Yale and U.S. Navy researchers have found.

This caveat follows from a unique study of 509 Navy and Marine officers undergoing elite survival training at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Results suggest that police and juries may give eyewitness testimony too much credibility, said Dr. Charles A. Morgan III, a Yale psychiatrist and lead author of the study.

"Memory in healthy people is not inherently terribly accurate. There's a substantial amount of error," Morgan said. "Maybe we should demand more evidence."

Authors wrote, "The present data have a number of implications for law enforcement personnel, mental health professionals, physicians, attorneys and judges."

Mario T. Gaboury, director of the Crime Victim Study Center at the University of New Haven, said, "Eyewitness testimony is often inaccurate. I don't think anyone understood the magnitude of the problem until the past few years."

Previous research has called the reliability of eyewitness accounts into question.

The current study, which was published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, is unusual in that participants were educationally, physically and mentally similar and all underwent nearly identical stressful events, Morgan said.

Groups of top officers undergoing realistic training at Fort Bragg are placed in a mock prisoner of war camp and subjected to low- and high-stress interrogations by U.S. officers acting as the "enemy."

The 40-minute high-stress session includes the threat of physical violence and creates stress levels equal to landing on an aircraft carrier at night for the first time and actual combat.

Details of the training are classified, but the study implies that participants are also "man-handled."

Twenty-four hours after the grueling sessions, the officers were asked to identify "interrogators" and "guards." They viewed a lineup, a group of photos and a sequence of photos.

Morgan and colleagues found that in the live lineup 30 percent of the high-stress group made correct identifications versus 62 percent of the low-stress group.

Using sequential photos the high-stress accuracy rate was 49 percent, while the low-stress rate rose to 76 percent.

The photo-spread method, which is used by most police departments, yielded even more lopsided results.

About 32 percent of the identifications in the high-stress group were correct, while 68 percent were wrong.

Around 88 percent of the low-stress group picks were correct, with a 12 percent error rate.

This means that almost seven out of 10 high-stress officers made mistaken identifications.

Furthermore, there was no relationship between the confidence level and accuracy of the memory, Morgan said.

Officers who were absolutely positive that they had selected the right person were no more likely to be correct than officers who expressed some doubt.

"Unfortunately, that's what people on juries listen to," Morgan said.

Morgan said high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline may degrade spatial memory.

Norepinephrine, also produced under stress, apparently interferes with the brain's prefrontal cortex, where memories are integrated, Morgan said.

Morgan said he hopes to measure hormone levels in trainees under various degrees of stress.

John H. Mace, professor of psychology at the University of New Haven, said many studies have cast doubt on the accuracy of eyewitness memories.

Mace said the Yale study is important because it apparently corroborates many previous hypotheses and results.

It may be a long time before defense lawyers start to challenge eyewitness testimony on the basis of the Yale and other memory studies, Gaboury said.

Court rulings typically lag behind scientific consensus, he said.

 

[zarkwon]

Your pretty close to just trolling the thread now and trolling leads to thin ice so watch your step.

Pot calling the kettle black a little for someone whose posts consist mainly of one line complaints about the nature of the thread but thanks for the warning Rik, I'll certainly take it on board. If at anytime you'd like to interject with some cogent arguments supporting your position or even demolishing mine rather than simply appealing for my punishment because you disagree with me then I'll be pleased to read it. The comment you called trolling is actually a logical series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It doesn't surprise me however that you are so unfamiliar with the concept as to find it unrecognisable. I'm sure everyone feels much safer knowing you are keeping an eye on things though.

 

[demographic]

The point in a conversation when someone brings up ghosts, god, the paranormal and pixies as if they are facts is coincidentally about the same time in a conversation where I start to back away slowly...Hopefully leaving the tin foil hatter speaking in tongues to them self.

 

[zarkwon]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment Demographic, I am not sure anyone has argued for the existence of pixies yet . I'm pleased you agree with me that they all belong in the same category however.

 

[BorderReiver]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment Demographic, I am not sure anyone has argued for the existence of pixies yet . I'm pleased you agree with me that they all belong in the same category however.

I just pop in to see what's happening, and here's some jerk casting doubt on the existence of Pixies.:yikes:

Prove that Pixies don't exist then, can't can you,eh, eh?

 

[SimonD]

I just pop in to see what's happening, and here's some jerk casting doubt on the existence of Pixies.:yikes:

Prove that Pixies don't exist then, can't can you,eh, eh?

I saw a pixie once! playing at 'the junction' in cambridge. in fact I much prefer Frank Black's solo stuff

 

[zarkwon]

Where is my mind? Of course I can't disprove pixies so they must exist. I see it now, watertight rationale. Thanks for the illustration Mike

 

[rik_uk3]

Pot calling the kettle black a little for someone whose posts consist mainly of one line complaints about the nature of the thread but thanks for the warning Rik, I'll certainly take it on board. If at anytime you'd like to interject with some cogent arguments supporting your position or even demolishing mine rather than simply appealing for my punishment because you disagree with me then I'll be pleased to read it. The comment you called trolling is actually a logical series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It doesn't surprise me however that you are so unfamiliar with the concept as to find it unrecognisable. I'm sure everyone feels much safer knowing you are keeping an eye on things though.

Hey, rant away, I love it Your still trolling though

 

[santaman2000]

... I wouldn't even rule out FTL flight - scientists have calculated that wormhole travel is feasible, although it'd take the power of several galaxies' stars to make the sums work! But who knows what they'll come up with in the future?...

This would make a fascinating thread all on its on if we were only the propper forum. And yes the power (energy) requirement is my understanding of the difficulty also.

 

[SimonD]

Hey, rant away, I love it Your still trolling though

i hardly think zarkwon's ranting. is he not just asking you to participate in the discussion? whereas it seems you are doing the grown ups equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying na na na na na.

 

[santaman2000]

...As far as eye-witness evidence goes, it is massively unreliable, however keen juries are on it. Although not a policeman, I've investigated hundreds of frauds over the last 30-odd years, taking a number to court. And I'd never rely purely on a single eye-witness. There have been a number of studies of eye-witness evidence, including a famous case during a lecture to law students. A particular "crime" was performed in front of them (the students were given no advance warning of this), and their recollections were all over the place. Most amazingly, no-one spotted the man in a gorilla suit that made an appearance during the furore, all subsequently denying this had even occurred when told until shown a video of the event!

Actually, I've managed to merge two different tests in the above - one of people failing to notice a "gorilla" on campus, and another staged "crime" in front of students who all managed to contradict each other on what exactly happened. Apologies - but it does go to show how memory plays tricks!

Ironicly as a cop you're trained to be more suspicious when testimony from multiple witnesses is in perfect agreement. It usually means that they have rehearsed their testimony. Yes memory does have it's limitations but even more confusion is added by the simple fact that the perception of the individual witnesses will be different. Quite simply they will focus on different aspects.

Also somewhat ironicly while I was training to be a cop great emphasis was placed on personal observation so as to enhance the credibility of my testimony. However while pursueing my degree in Proffessional Aeronautics one of the classes was Aircraft Accident Investigation; There we were taught to generally disregard testimony from witnesses of the accident (especially from aviation witnesses as their testimony likely would be biased))

 

[rik_uk3]

i hardly think zarkwon's ranting. is he not just asking you to participate in the discussion? whereas it seems you are doing the grown ups equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying na na na na na.

No, not at all, I believe he is pushing buttons, a wind up merchant ergo a troll but thats just my opinion young Simon.

 

[santaman2000]

Another example

U.S. Navy Study: Eyewitnesses Unreliable

Abram Katz , New Haven Register --Science Editor
06/21/2004

Victims who get a good long look at violent criminals are unlikely to identify them accurately later, Yale and U.S. Navy researchers have found.

This caveat follows from a unique study of 509 Navy and Marine officers undergoing elite survival training at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Results suggest that police and juries may give eyewitness testimony too much credibility, said Dr. Charles A. Morgan III, a Yale psychiatrist and lead author of the study.

"Memory in healthy people is not inherently terribly accurate. There's a substantial amount of error," Morgan said. "Maybe we should demand more evidence."

Authors wrote, "The present data have a number of implications for law enforcement personnel, mental health professionals, physicians, attorneys and judges."

Mario T. Gaboury, director of the Crime Victim Study Center at the University of New Haven, said, "Eyewitness testimony is often inaccurate. I don't think anyone understood the magnitude of the problem until the past few years."

Previous research has called the reliability of eyewitness accounts into question.

The current study, which was published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, is unusual in that participants were educationally, physically and mentally similar and all underwent nearly identical stressful events, Morgan said.

Groups of top officers undergoing realistic training at Fort Bragg are placed in a mock prisoner of war camp and subjected to low- and high-stress interrogations by U.S. officers acting as the "enemy."

The 40-minute high-stress session includes the threat of physical violence and creates stress levels equal to landing on an aircraft carrier at night for the first time and actual combat.

Details of the training are classified, but the study implies that participants are also "man-handled."

Twenty-four hours after the grueling sessions, the officers were asked to identify "interrogators" and "guards." They viewed a lineup, a group of photos and a sequence of photos.

Morgan and colleagues found that in the live lineup 30 percent of the high-stress group made correct identifications versus 62 percent of the low-stress group.

Using sequential photos the high-stress accuracy rate was 49 percent, while the low-stress rate rose to 76 percent.

The photo-spread method, which is used by most police departments, yielded even more lopsided results.

About 32 percent of the identifications in the high-stress group were correct, while 68 percent were wrong.

Around 88 percent of the low-stress group picks were correct, with a 12 percent error rate.

This means that almost seven out of 10 high-stress officers made mistaken identifications.

Furthermore, there was no relationship between the confidence level and accuracy of the memory, Morgan said.

Officers who were absolutely positive that they had selected the right person were no more likely to be correct than officers who expressed some doubt.

"Unfortunately, that's what people on juries listen to," Morgan said.

Morgan said high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline may degrade spatial memory.

Norepinephrine, also produced under stress, apparently interferes with the brain's prefrontal cortex, where memories are integrated, Morgan said.

Morgan said he hopes to measure hormone levels in trainees under various degrees of stress.

John H. Mace, professor of psychology at the University of New Haven, said many studies have cast doubt on the accuracy of eyewitness memories.

Mace said the Yale study is important because it apparently corroborates many previous hypotheses and results.

It may be a long time before defense lawyers start to challenge eyewitness testimony on the basis of the Yale and other memory studies, Gaboury said.

Court rulings typically lag behind scientific consensus, he said.

I don't argue the logic of their findings; I tend to agree with them so I'm reluntant to cast dispersions on this study but I think I must. I have to question it's authenticity because said survival training (called S.E.R.E. for Survival Evasion Reststance and Escape) is conducted on the West coast at Fairchild AFB, Washington over 2000 miles from Ft. Bragg.

 

[SimonD]

No, not at all, I believe he is pushing buttons, a wind up merchant ergo a troll but thats just my opinion young Simon.

i think you covered opinions earlier...

 

[rik_uk3]

And still have a right to express them as I feel fit I think.

 

[demographic]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment Demographic, I am not sure anyone has argued for the existence of pixies yet . I'm pleased you agree with me that they all belong in the same category however.

Yeah, the same category bit was pretty much my point.

 

[SimonD]

And still have a right to express them as I feel fit I think.

yet you don't seem to extend the courtesy to others. rather veiled threats of 'skating on thin ice' when you hear something you either don't like or have no answer for

 

[789987]

 

[SimonD]

i know, i know. and i'd been doing so well in just an 'observational' role on this thread:togo: