OMG, Libby "memory expert" is Elizabeth Loftus

[rocco33]

Joe Cannon's contributor, the mysterious "Dr. elsewhere", has a good post about this that you guys should check out. She has some first hand insight and was directly connected to who originally was to handle the case before Loftus got in. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/10/playing-memory-card.html"><br>cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/10/playing-memory-card.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

FYI:<br>Cannonfire has lots of pro-cover story links for 9/11 including the Popular Mechanics site.<br><br>I wouldn't spend too much time reading anyone who puts so much energy in supporting the 9/11 Omission Panel. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Cannonfire has lots of pro-cover story links for 9/11 including the Popular Mechanics site.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Actually, I don't have a problem with a site that shows both sides of an issue. I see that as a strength. <p></p><i></i>

[Project Willow]

Loftus' theories about memory should have been shredded years ago. Wait, now that I recall, they have been. I'll have to look up the links.<br>She makes incredible assumptions about the processing of traumatic memory based on "studies" that examine the use of normative or narrative memory, or the influnce of authority. None of her studies have focused on actual traumatic memories, or how they are processed in the brain. It should be abundantly clear by now that normative experiences are integrated in completely different ways, using different areas of the brain, than traumatic material. Even in the case of trauma, that processing will differ based on whether one is the victim or a bystander. I recall the statement of one survivor I knew: "I think I should know better than these yahoos who it was that had their dick in me, it's not like I had to spot him at a distance." I wish some academic had the balls not only to refute all of her bullshit, but confront it consistantly in as many public forums as possible.<br><br>And I hate this baloney about "repression" having been disproved. It's a rhetorical strawman. We call it dissociation now, and even DID is being proven by imaging studies. And shame on them for attacking Sybil, shame on all those f'n freaks.<br><br>Loftus has no lack of backing and that in and of itself should be a slice of proof that the pedophacracy is real, interwoven into most institutions, or CaIrvine is a whore seeking to capitalize on her notoriety, the latter nearly as likely I supppose, or maybe a combination of the two.<br><br>I once had a puplic tit for tat with Loftus, via a proxy, a letter to the editor - editor. I could share a few personal rumors about her, but I don't wish to be sued. If you can't tell already, just being reminded of this whole thing makes me broil. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>CaIrvine</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>Every time I will see CaIrvine in the future, I will se "PIMP" writ in very big letters. Fritz's examinations is very bad for them. I also include the whores, the American Psychiatric Association: <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"...a team of panelists determined that Recovered Memory Treatment controversy was dead. But, the statement from the APA reads, "Psychiatry still needs to help the main victims of RMT: those falsely accused of heinous crimes which never happened."...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/27/06 10:00 pm<br></i>

[chiggerbit]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>She makes incredible assumptions about the processing of traumatic memory based on "studies" that examine the use of normative or narrative memory, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>or the influnce of authority</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Weren't the parents of the children in the mall study involved cooperatively in her study, encouraging their own children to believe that they had been lost? How about a new study, getting parents convincing their own children to believe that they, the parents, had been involved in abusing or neglecting them, and reporting it? Would the children then develop false memories against their own parents? I think not. What an abusive and skewed study. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201541.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...01541.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Judge Excludes Memory Expert From Libby Trial <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 11/3/06 9:06 pm<br></i>