PARIS --- Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly in Friday, March 16 presented her Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Innovation Roadmap, at a ceremony marking the launch of the Man-Machine Teaming (MMT) study which aims to develop artificial intelligence for combat aviation.
IA announces a new phase of the digital revolution and the Armed Forces Minister wants the department to fully seize all opportunities. Identified by the mission of Cédric Villani as a priority sector for public investment in artificial intelligence, defense conceals a great variety of potential applications of AI: automatic image recognition, electronic warfare, collaborative combat, navigation autonomous robots, cybersecurity, predictive maintenance, decision and command support, etc.
Florence Parly unveiled a comprehensive action plan. An increased technological watch will be ensured by the "Innovation Defense Lab", the new hub of defense innovation open to the ecosystem of startups, which will be inaugurated this year.
Florence Parly announced that the Armed Forces Ministry intended to give all the financial and human means to secure AI. The minister has announced the recruitment of about fifty additional experts in data science and AI, and the progressive investment of 100 million euros per year in the field of artificial intelligence.
In concrete terms, the ARTEMIS Innovation Partnership contract, awarded in November 2017, will, for example, provide a mass storage and data processing infrastructure adapted to defense needs. Finally, many studies and researches for operational applications of AI will be launched, taking advantage of the increase to 1 billion euros per year of the Armed Forces Ministry's studies and innovation budget, as earmarked in the 2019-2025 military program law.
The MMT project presented today to the Armed Forces Minister by the DGA and the industrialists Dassault Aviation and Thales is part of this roadmap.
It consists in improving combat aviation by bringing reactivity and help to the decision-making of the airmen and the operators thanks to AI. This project will be innovative in its method since the DGA, Dassault Aviation and Thales will be surrounded from the beginning of the project by the skills and inventiveness of SMEs and French laboratories working on civil applications of AI.
Florence Parly also pointed out that innovation was an absolute necessity for the strategic superiority of our military forces, and that it was one of the major axes of the 2019-2025 military programme law. The Minister reaffirmed her commitment to strong links between the Ministry of the Armed Forces and civilian economy and research. She called on everyone to work together and to be bold and to take the initiative.
Florence Parly has announced the creation of a Defense Innovation Agency within the Ministry of the Armed Forces. This agency will be open to the civil economy, to start-ups, turned towards Europe and will allow the development of innovative defense projects.
SAINT-CLOUD, France --- Today, Eric Trappier, Chairman & CEO of Dassault Aviation, and Patrice Caine, Chairman & CEO of Thales, received French Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly, and Joël Barre, Delegate General for Armament, at Dassault Aviation's headquarters in Saint-Cloud.
Florence Parly was shown some of the concepts on which the "Man-Machine-Teaming" advanced study programme (PEA MMT) is based. This design plan, awarded to Dassault Aviation (lead) and Thales (co-contractor) by the French defense procurement agency DGA, aims to develop the necessary Artificial Intelligence technologies for combat aviation of the future.
During her visit, the Minister of the Armed Forces was particularly able to see the "cognitive air system" concept, which is based on more autonomous functions onboard aircraft and on a Man/Machine relationship in which the human element is constantly maintained in the decision loop.
Florence Parly also met representatives of about a hundred French start-ups, SMEs, laboratories and research centers specialised in Artificial Intelligence, robotics and new Man/Machine interfaces. This ecosystem will be involved in the PEA, in partnership with Dassault Aviation and Thales, to develop cutting-edge algorithms and propose disruptive solutions.
Dassault Aviation and Thales thank the Ministry of the Armed Forces for its trust in such a highly strategic field. They are delighted to federate France's world-class Artificial Intelligence ecosystem around military aviation challenges.
The Man-Machine-Teaming advanced study programme was notified to the companies by the DGA in January 2018. It will take place over three years and will involve Dassault Aviation (lead contractor, air combat system) and Thales (co-contractor, Human/System interface and sensors).
-- Define future cockpits and independent systems.
-- Improve innovative technologies in Man/Machine teaming within the cognitive air system, particularly decision-making autonomy and machine learning.
-- Enhance concepts and technologies in the field of smart / learning sensors.
With over 10,000 military and civil aircraft delivered in more than 90 countries over the last century, Dassault Aviation has built up expertise recognized worldwide in the design, development, sale and support of all types of aircraft, ranging from the Rafale fighter, to the high-end Falcon family of business jets and military drones. In 2017, Dassault Aviation reported revenues of €4.8 billion. The company has 12,000 employees.
Combining a unique diversity of expertise, talents and cultures, our architects design and deliver extraordinary high technology solutions. Solutions that make tomorrow possible, today. From the bottom of the oceans to the depths of space and cyberspace, we help our customers think smarter and act faster – mastering ever greater complexity and every decisive moment along the way. With 65,000 employees in 56 countries, Thales reported sales of €15.8 billion in 2017.


text:
/*
 * generated by Xtext
 */
package de.beyondjava.xtext.jsf;

/**
 * Use this class to register components to be used at runtime / without the Equinox extension registry.
 */
public class ComponentLanguageRuntimeModule extends de.beyondjava.xtext.jsf.AbstractComponentLanguageRuntimeModule {

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
The Island President Trailer (2012)
Jon Shenk's The Island President tells the story of President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, a man confronting a problem greater than any other world leader has ever faced--the literal survival of his country and everyone in it. After bringing democracy to the Maldives after thirty years of despotic rule, Nasheed is now faced with an even greater challenge: as one of the most low-lying countries in the world, a rise of three feet in sea level would submerge the 1200 islands of the Maldives enough to make them uninhabitable. The Island President captures Nasheed's first year of office, culminating in his trip to the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, where the film provides a rare glimpse of the political horse-trading that goes on at such a top-level global assembly. Nasheed is unusually candid about revealing his strategies--leveraging the Maldives' underdog position as a tiny country, harnessing the power of media, and overcoming deadlocks through an appeal to unity with other developing nations. When hope fades for a written accord to be signed, Nasheed makes a stirring speech which salvages an agreement. Despite the modest size of his country, Mohamed Nasheed has become one of the leading international voices for urgent action on climate change.
Jon Shenk
Feb 28, 2012 Trailer
Apr 16, 2012 Featurette - Inside Look
The Island President
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="//cdn.traileraddict.com/css/rembed.css">

Trailer for The Island President on TrailerAddict.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Eyewitness testimony, memory, and assassination research
Dennis Ford, Ph.D.* and Mark Zaid, Esq.**
Proceedings of the Second Research Conference of The Third Decade, Pages 21–40
Omni Biltmore Hotel, Providence, Rhode Island, June 18–20, 1993
Between four to five hundred witnesses awaited President Kennedy's arrival in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Few probably expected what lay ahead. Of these eyewitnesses to the murder of the century, less than two hundred testified on record as to what they observed or heard.[1] Since then many additional witnesses have come forward and as the years passed many eyewitnesses have told their stories to family, friends, journalists and researchers. Some have even entered the foray of assassinologists and published their views on what was seen, heard and occurred that fateful Fall day in November.[2]
Were multiple gunmen present in Dealey Plaza? Did the shots originate from the School Book Depository Building, the Grassy Knoll or perhaps both or neither? How many shots were heard? Who were the unidentified men in the railroad parking lot described only as Secret Service Agents? Were photographs and films of the assassination confiscated by government agents? Depending upon the eyewitness these questions may have extremely different answers.
Yet since many researchers have placed their undivided attention and trust into the recollections of these witnesses entire theories rest solely upon these perceptions. Unfortunately, few people understand the dangers involved with relying on witness testimony and so often accept reports to be accurate. After all, the researcher will assert, that eyewitness was on the scene and is certainly in a better position to describe the events as they occurred than an investigator who was hundreds of miles away. But this confidence in the accuracy of eyewitness testimony—the "sacred element of evidence"—is contradicted by proven experimental data accumulated and verified by one hundred years of research undertaken by teams of psychologists and attorneys.[3]
Studies have demonstrated that eyewitness testimony is, in fact, extremely unreliable. "Research and courtroom experience provide ample evidence that an eyewitness to a crime is being asked to be something and do something that a normal human being was not created to be or do … to play the role of tape recorder on whose tape the events of the crime have left an impression."[4] It is therefore a topic that must not be ignored, particularly in light of the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination. As more and more time passes eyewitness accounts will become more difficult to verify thus necessitating a higher degree of scrutiny than has previously been occurring within the research community.
Quite clearly the exclamation of a witness declaring, without a doubt in their mind, that a particular person was the perpetrator that they witnessed at the scene of a crime has a profound effect on a listener. Based on the sole testimony of even but one witness countless alleged offenders have been found guilty.[5] But while the unreliability of such evidence is now widely accepted among attorneys and psychologists, the average person on the street—the Kennedy researcher—continues to embrace most witness statements as unequivocally accurate.[6] Strangely, while the research community displays a healthy skepticism towards evidence produced by the Warren Commission or the FBI, this doubt nearly completely disappears in the face of a witness whose allegations point towards a possible conspiratorial plot. Why?
Many researchers might disagree with this article's premise that witness statements have cause such a profound impact on their conclusions. What must be demonstrated, therefore, is the persuasive power eyewitness testimony has on people when they voluntarily listen to testimony and then attempt to reach a conclusion. For example, consider the following study undertaken by a preeminent psychologist:
[M]ock jurors were given a description of a grocery store robbery in which the owner and his granddaughter were killed. The jurors also received a summary of the evidence and arguments presented at the defendant's trial, after which each juror was asked to arrive at a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Some of the jurors were told that there had been no eyewitnesses to the crime. Others were told that a store clerk had testified that he had seen the defendant shoot the two victims, although the defense attorney claimed he was mistaken. Finally, a third group of jurors heard that the store clerk had testified to seeing the shootings, but that the defense attorney had discredited him by showing that the clerk had not been wearing his glasses on the day of the robbery and that his vision was too poor to allow him to see the face of the robber from where he stood.
In the first instance, where there was no eyewitness, 18% of the jurors felt that the defendant was guilty. This rose to 72% when a single eyewitness account was added to the evidence. Interestingly, in the example above where the eyewitness had been substantially impeached, 68% of the jurors still voted to convict. The study suggests the extent to which jurors [or researchers, perhaps] will believe even contradicted eyewitness testimony.[7]
The first section of this article will present an outline of the "memory model." This model serves as the psychological basis for the analysis of eyewitness testimony. The second section will discuss how and why the principles of memory affect the study of the assassination. Finally, the concluding section will apply these principles to the statements of an actual eyewitness to the tragedy. However, it must be noted that this article serves neither to refute or support the notion of a conspiracy. Nor does it accuse any specific witnesses of lying or fabricating their stories. Quite the contrary, it is likely that the witness truly believes the events happened as described yet fails to realize the role their own mind has played in continuously shaping their memory.[8]
This article strongly suggests to the research community that a greater degree of analytical evaluation of witness statements is necessary rather than the typical face-value acceptance observed for so long.[9] In the same way that events in Dealey Plaza must conform with physical laws, so they must comply with psychological laws. Researchers should not place themselves in a position of having to rely on eyewitness accounts without understanding the dynamics which may create and distort such accounts. At the very least, consideration of such factors might provide a standard by which the innumerable statements in this case—whether favorable to conspiracy theories or to the belief of a lone gunman—might be fairly and skeptically evaluated.
A. The Memory Model
Memory is the persistence of experience over time.[10] It is a complex phenomenon which includes the capacity to acquire, retain and retrieve information. Each of these capacities operates within three separate storage systems: (a) the sensory register, (b) short-term memory, and (c) long-term memory.
The sensory register is a brief (one second) and thorough "registering" of events. The fundamentals of such a process fall outside of the scope of this article for it has been identified only though the use of specialized laboratory equipment. Although it is always operative this system is not what most people identify as "memory."
Short-term memory is a brief (20 second) and limited (five–nine pieces of information) storage of data. Data is retained in short-term memory by repetitive rehearsal. Common examples include the retention of pieces of conversation or your anguished efforts to memorize a telephone number just given to you by the operator.
Long-term memory consists of a lengthy duration and sports an enormous capacity. Information need not be rehearsed when in long-term memory, but must acquire its place through an elaborative rehearsal in which new information is associated with previously acquired information. Such a function is an active, effortful process rather than a passive or automatic process. If long-term memory is conceptualized as a house with many entries, elaborative rehearsal would be the main door to the house. Notwithstanding the fact that sometimes information comes in through the windows most of what enters does so by way of the main door.
The process of retrieval is also an active process. It is often pictured as a search through one's memory—usually, long-term memory. The process of retrieval is perhaps best observed when it fails, as in the "tip-of-the-tongue dilemma" experienced by us all when we cannot recall a specific item yet know we know it.
Retrieval is often studied in terms of states and contexts. State-dependent memories are retrievable only when the person is in the same psychological state as when the information was acquired. The classic example involves the consumption of alcohol but more common are subtle examples involving emotions. Context-dependent memories are retrievable only when the person is in the same physical environment as when the information was originally acquired. In a manner not clearly understood, context-dependent memories become linked to the setting in which the experiences took place. Examples include "revisiting the scene of the crime" or returning to a childhood home where the mere structure and scenery evoke recollections otherwise not previously available.
Most forgetting of newly learned information occurs within twenty-four hours after acquisition. The process of forgetting previously acquired information occurs at a slower rate. Forgetting, or the loss of information, can occur at various places along the memory model.[11] Events may not have entered short-term memory because the temporal or storage limitations were exceeded. It is possible that repetitive rehearsal encountered a form of interference. Events may have entered short-term memory but not long-term memory because elaborative rehearsal may have suffered such interference. Then again events many have entered long-term memory successfully yet still be inaccessible due to state or context failure. The presence of other memories may also have caused interference.
Modern psychology views interference as the major cause for forgetting. Two types of interference are generally recognized: "proactive," or the interference of older memories on the recall of recently acquired information, and "retroactive," or the interference of recently acquired information on the recall of older memories. Interference is a fundamental process in the construction of blended memories where the retrieval of one event mixes in and is distorted by other memories. The effects of both forms of interference are conjectured to become stronger as the passage of time increases between the original experience and recall of the experience.
For instance, retroactive interference should be considered as a factor in the sightings of Oswald before the assassination.[12] That is not to say that such sightings did not occur—at such locations as the Carousel Club, a rifle range, a car dealership, etc.—but it is to suggest that some of the details may have been inserted into memory at a later time. Certainty about the identity of Oswald may have been clarified only when his appearance became known after the assassination. Normally people do not retain details of insignificant encounters, but rehearse only what is required at a particular moment and then rapidly forget the information.
Although memory for faces may persist for a lengthy time, it is unlikely that memory of the specifics of the conversation would persist for weeks or months afterward.[13] Since the latter part of the nineteenth century it has been known that the loss of information obtained through verbal communication occurs almost immediately after acquisition. Concepts such as these are more fully explored in the next section.
B. Application to Research on the Assassination of President Kennedy
There are several misconceptions about memory that have a direct effect on the study of President Kennedy's assassination. First, it is generally assumed that the more violent the crime, the more likely a witness will be able to remember the details. Most people of age can remember exactly where they were when Kennedy was shot. They can recall not only what they were doing, but the emotions they felt and with whom they were shared.[14] However, studies have demonstrated that witness accuracy is consistently poorer in violent or stressful situations [See Addendum A].
It has been theorized that a mental shock disrupts the process necessary for full storage of memories.[15] Another postulation is that in situations where emotions run high, such as would occur during a violent assassination, people tend to become more distracted, more self-preoccupied[16] or more worried.[17]
Second, the more stressful the perception the less likely the witness will be able to accurately judge the length of time that passed during the event. The assassination of President Kennedy occurred during a time frame of 4.8 to 7.9 seconds. Witnesses are always asked, among other things, to describe the actions of themselves and/or others during and after the shooting and the length of time that elapsed during shots. But how accurate are witnesses likely to be in their descriptions—not very, particularly in light of the complexity and violence surrounding the assassination.[18]
Studies have shown witnesses are likely to overestimate the duration of the event by twice the amount and greater, especially in situations where the event was of a very short duration.[19] One study involving a simulated bank robbery even resulted in witnesses describing a thirty second event as having taken fifteen minutes![20] Therefore, we must be wary of those witnesses that have connected a happenstance that appears to be of significant importance because it might actually have occurred minutes or even hours later.
In fact, one study conducted provides fascinating insight into the accuracy of eyewitness identification. A staged assault of a professor was held in front of 141 unsuspecting witnesses and videotaped for subsequent evaluation. Immediately after the incident sworn statements were taken from everyone detailing everything they remembered. Most were inaccurate when compared to the videotape. The elapsed duration of the assault was overestimated by two and a half to one. The attacker's weight was overestimated by an average of 14% and his age was underestimated by 2 years. Most enlightening, however, was that after seven weeks 60% of the witnesses, including the professor himself, identified the wrong man as the attacker from a group of photographs. 25% identified an innocent bystander as the culprit.[21]
Third, we are often faced with having to reconcile known facts with the determined confidence of witnesses statements. Was Jack Ruby really in Dealey Plaza? Did Lee Harvey Oswald leave from the rear of the building in a Nash Rambler?[22] The fact is that there is little or no relationship between the confidence of a witness and the accuracy of their statements. This raises several issues. What is the effect of supplemental experiences upon a witness's memory and for what extent of time does accuracy in remembering details really last?
These questions should be of the greatest importance to Kennedy researchers when making their determinations as to a witness's accuracy. Clearly, one must accept the fact that many witnesses' memories have become tainted over the years by newspaper accounts, television documentaries and even the researchers themselves. By the time witnesses were testifying before the Warren Commission members and staff, mere months after the occurrence of the assassination, witnesses were indicating they were unsure of whether certain facts had come to their attention because of the media or were bonafides memories of their own.[23]
Various witnesses over the years have been "taken under the wing" of assassination authors and researchers and have more than likely endlessly discussed the many mysteries of what occurred during the events surrounding the assassination. Ten, twenty, now thirty years later, when they tell their stories, are they really theirs or are they ours?
New information can do more than supplement a memory it can serve to alter it as well. In fact, the mere use of a word can distort a witness's recollection.[24] One study had students witness a filmed auto accident and answer various questions. "The subjects estimated a higher speed when the question, 'About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?' was asked than they did when the verb 'smashed' was replaced with the verb 'collided,' 'bumped,' 'contacted,' or 'hit.' When tested one week later, those subjects who had been given the verb 'smashed' were more likely to answer 'yes' to the question 'Did you see any broken glass?'—even though broken glass was not present in the film."[25] Consider for a moment how many researchers have noted that the Warren Commission attorneys continuously led witnesses with highly leading and persuasive questions.
Yet witnesses also distort their own memories.[26] Again, a variety of reasons may exist for this to occur. For one thing, witnesses are affected by their own internal thoughts, wishes and desires. People often wish to place themselves into a better light or help contribute to an important project such as solving the assassination of a President. This does not have to be done purposefully nor does it have to be even consciously noticed by the witness. In these situations it is virtually impossible to determine which memories are real and which are not.[27]
Unfortunately, memories are not in place forever. The passing of time, rather than serving to burn a memory in place, lessens the likelihood that the memory will be retrieved with as much accuracy as before (Addendum B). As the assassination now took place thirty years ago, this fact is important to consider. But even more crucial is that there is significant memory loss after several years or even months. One study examined the ability of eyewitnesses to recall a distinct face.[28] The subject was professors who had taught a class of approximately forty students for two weeks, one year, four years, or eight years prior to the study. In the test design chance accuracy was 20%. After two weeks the accuracy of the identification was at 69%, after one year it dropped to 48%, at four years it was 31% and after eight years it was just above chance at a mere 26%.[29] Thus, even though these students had viewed the same professor for weeks on end, after several years the accuracy of their memory was not much better than if a stranger attempted to identify their professor.
How many people have identified Oswald as having been in a particular place, at a particular time, doing a particular activity? How many of those had never seen Oswald before and would not see him again until they identified him for the record? Why do we accept these stories as definitive facts when "[w]ith a single encounter lasting a brief period, the [memory] trace has been estimated to be effectively gone in less than a year.[30] Recall for a moment that many witness identifications of Oswald stemmed from chance encounters months prior to the time Oswald was thrust into the limelight. Few of these meetings exhibit any noticeable reasons why a witness should be able to accurately identify Oswald in a definitive manner so many months later.[31]
Of course the accuracy of memory is only just one area of witness reliability that must be understood by assassination researchers. We must also be cognizant of the ability witnesses possess to accurately identify the source of a sound. Rather than eyewitnesses, these persons are ear witnesses, a field of study that has not received nearly as much attention as the studies previously discussed. However, the importance of such witnesses can not be underestimated for the question of the origins of each of the shots fired in Dealey Plaza remains a hotly debated topic to this day.[32]
The official interpretation of the origin of the shots, of course, remains that they were fired from above and to the left rear of the motorcade. Hence, depending upon where a bystander was positioned the shots would have been heard from either the left or right but always from above. Other theories, particularly those that include shots fired from the grassy knoll, factor in sound impulses as originating at ground level from either the left or right. Unless, regardless of the theory, the witness was situated in a position in front of or behind the location of origin. This would include such witnesses, for example, as Mary Moorman and Gordon Arnold for shots occurring from the grassy knoll and Howard Leslie Brennan and Amos Euins for shots fired from the Depository Building.
Witnesses are generally very adept at locating the source of a sound if it originated from the left or right of the person. This is due to the fact that a "person's ability to determine the direction of a sound is rooted in the time differential as the sound wave strikes the ear closer to the source of the sound and then the more distant ear."[33] Of course, other factors may interfere with this ability—i.e., the existence of a cold or hearing impairment. In fact, the witness may not even be aware of this impairment. But, most importantly to the context of assassination research, the ability of a person to accurately distinguish sounds originating from above or below or to the front or the back is very poor.
When such an incident occurs people unconsciously rely on their higher order stratagems for determining the origin of the sound. Essentially, they choose a location that appears to make the most sense to them in relation to their other sensory perceptions.[34] Therefore, if a witness standing directly across from the picket fence hears a shot and then sees a person running from or to that area that witness might come to the unconscious decision that the shots originated from the picket fence. The witness, unaware of the role her other senses played, would continue to believe that she heard the shot coming from the fence.
The American public was originally led to believe that the evidence in favor of Oswald's culpability in the assassination was highly incriminating and originated from several sources. Over the years, officials, whether they were police officers or part of a government investigation, have pointed to the discovery of Oswald's palm print (and possibly his fingerprints) on the alleged murder weapon, information obtained from Oswald's alleged diary, and, most often, eyewitness accounts implicating Oswald in the assassination. During the trial of Claw Shaw in 1967–69 by the late Jim Garrison, formerly the District Attorney of New Orleans, the testimony of the prosecution's star witness, Perry Russo, was largely brought forth under hypnosis and utilized polygraph tests as supporting evidence. To what extent then, we must ask, do such factors as fingerprint identification, handwriting analysis, hypnosis and eyewitness identification play a role in persuading "objective" researchers? One such study attempted to answer this question.
Mock jurors were presented testimony involving a hypothetical cashing of a bad check. The defendant was accused of purchasing a television set by check knowing that insufficient funds existed to cover such a purchase. Four separate groups of jurors were created each of which were told numerous details about the case. But one specific critical fact, of which there were four different ones, were separately presented to each of the groups. The first group was informed that an eyewitness (the store clerk who had sold the television) had identified the defendant. Group two was told that a polygraph expert had tested the defendant and, in their opinion, the defendant was lying. The third set of jurors heard that a fingerprint expert had matched prints left on the counter to those of the defendant. Lastly, the final group was given the results of a handwriting analysis of the defendant that was compared to the check. Both signatures were a perfect match.
When the conviction results from each of the groups were tabulated based upon the one distinct fact presented to each group, the results were as follows. Group one came back with the highest rate of conviction—78% The lowest was that of group four, who possessed the handwriting analysis, at a mere 34%. Fingerprint evidence and polygraph testimony resulted in convictions of 70% and 53% respectively. As demonstrated by most studies, actual witness testimony is most persuasive.[35]
Finally, while hypnosis has not been greatly used by assassination researchers, it has certainly played a role in the case, as evidenced by the trial of Clay Shaw and in the use of PSE equipment (which is outside of the scope of this article). Although a few studies have shown that hypnosis can have some beneficial effects on memory recall,[36] most studies have demonstrated that hypnosis rarely, if ever, improves a witness's memory.[37] In fact, hypnosis sometimes renders people more susceptible to being misled by post-event suggestions as was evidently demonstrated in the case of Perry Russo.[38]
C. Memory Application to the Statements and Recollections of Jean Hill
Of the many witnesses to the assassination Jean Hill provides us with the most ample opportunity to apply the principles of memory recall. This is so because her statements can be effectively traced over the entire thirty year period since the assassination commencing with her initial statement taken on November 22, 1963, to various interviews with authors/researchers during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s through to the publication of her book, JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness in 1992. The final conclusion of the authors is simple and straightforward: Mrs. Hill has developed into one of the most unreliable eyewitnesses and her statements should be discounted or, at least, minimized in their application to future works on the assassination.[39]
This is not to say that Mrs. Hill is being accused of lying. To say that a person's memory might be false is not synonymous with an accusation that the person is deliberately lying, although that is always a possibility to consider. Rather, it is the conjecture of the authors that the principles previously discussed, particularly the influence that certain researchers have effected upon Mrs. Hill, has led her stories to become unreal or perforated with false memories.
Mrs. Hill was awaiting the arrival of the motorcade with her friend Ms. Mary Moorman on the southeastern area of Elm Street, directly across the street from the grassy knoll. Following the assassination both women were immediately interviewed by a local television station and a reporter from the Dallas Times Herald[40] and eventually were taken to the Dallas County Sheriff's Office across the street from the Texas School Book Depository Building where her first statement was taken by law enforcement officials.[41]
In that statement Mrs. Hill recollects how she heard two shots ring out before President Kennedy appeared to react followed by three or four more shots until the motorcade sped away. Initially she felt that "men in plain clothes [were] shooting back but everything was such a blur…"[42] Upon directing her attention to across the street "and up the hill I saw a man running toward the monument and I started running over there."[43] But by the time she reached the railroad tracks policemen turned her away. When she returned to her original location Jim Featherstone, of the Dallas Times Herald, was attempting to obtain the original photographs taken by Ms. Moorman. Mr. Featherstone then took the two of them over to the press room which was down the hall from the Sheriff's office.[44]
By the time she testifies before Assistant Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter on March 24, 1964, her story had already undergone a transition into a more richly detailed and specific account of the event and her actions. In order to best demonstrate the discrepancies within Mrs. Hill's accounts through the decades four specific instances will be analyzed: (a) the sighting of a dog within the limousine; (b) her chasing of a man up the hill and the encounter with police officers/secret service agents which (c) led to her experience with officials while in the Sheriff's office; and (d) her current story that she noticed a flash of light, a puff of smoke and a gunman in the act of firing from the knoll or picket fence.
In her first statements to the press and police officials Mrs. Hill mistakenly identifies the flowers Mrs. Kennedy had been given earlier as a little dog;[45] a quote that she quickly regretted as it served as the basis of a significant amount of ridicule, particularly from her estranged husband. The fact that this misidentification occurred does not reflect on the veracity of Mrs. Hill's other accounts but certainly serves as an excellent example of how easily an eyewitness can be misled when their memory process is overburdened or incomplete.
Not having paid any significant amount of attention towards what was actually placed between the President and Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Hill became the victim of a form of unconscious transference. As she explained to Arlen Specter Mrs. Hill related that because she was aware that Elizabeth Taylor or the Gabor sisters would usually take along small dogs on their trips, evidently her mind assumed that perhaps what she had seen was a dog as well. Unconsciously, her memory of other events fused with what her eyewitness perception was unsure about. Combined together a conclusion, albeit incorrect, was drawn and until shown proof of the error the incorrect conclusion would be retained as the accurate memory. Perhaps it might be simple to overlook this misperception as an honest error, but why should this instance be any less indicative of the problems with memory perception than the details that Mrs. Hill has given supporting the notion of a conspiracy?
What happened behind the picket fence alongside the grassy knoll as President Kennedy's limousine reached an angle of perpendicularity is perhaps the one piece of information that until explained will always provide pure circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Plainclothes men identifying themselves to law enforcement agents and bystanders as agents of the Secret Service where none were known to be stationed does more than just raise harmless suspicions.[46] An attempt by the House Select Committee on Assassinations to uncover these "agents" identities failed and to this day no evidence seems to exist that would lead to an innocent explanation.[47]
The question, therefore, is not whether these men were present, for we know they were, but did Jean Hill suffer a physical altercation with such men or is her recall of such an incident another false memory placed there accidentally over the years by well-wishing researchers?[48] Mrs. Hill had volunteered to the police that she had seen a man "running towards the monument" and, as she told Arlen Specter, she ran up the hill "looking for him" with the hope to capture him.[49] After seeing Oswald himself assassinated by Jack Ruby, Mrs. Hill came to the erroneous conclusion that the man she saw running was Jack Ruby.[50] She later recanted this story after speaking to the FBI and having suffered further ridicule by friends and family members.
But the identification of this "running man" as someone who was involved with the shooting and even perhaps as Jack Ruby is another example of how your mind unconsciously affects your conscious decisions. Because Mrs. Hill's attention became transfixed on a running figure at a moment where she and many others remained frozen she determined that this person must somehow be involved otherwise he would not be running. This type of unconscious determination often occurs at crime scenes. It is only natural that someone suspects a person who is running away from a crime scene to have been involved, otherwise why would they feel compelled to run if not guilty?[51]
Identifying Jack Ruby as the running man is also understandable as Mrs. Hill apparently merged the two events she witnessed into one since to her this made the most sense. It was this type of misidentification that resulted in the public disclosure of the Mexico Mystery Man photograph as Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, after seeing Jack Ruby subsequent to the shooting of her son, misidentified Ruby as the person in the photograph. The FBI and CIA were compelled to produce the photograph in order to dispel the accusation that Mrs. Oswald was shown a picture of Ruby the day before he killed Lee Harvey Oswald.
Between the time of Mrs. Hill's public statements on the day of the assassination to the time she was interviewed before Arlen Specter four months later the men who prevented her from completing her trek after the running man underwent a startling transformation; one that would continue to alter throughout the years. Originally these men were "policemen" and from her description to Mr. Specter these officers were in uniform rather than in plainclothes. You might recall that Patrolman J.M. Smith of the Dallas Police Department described the agents whom he encountered as dressed in plainclothes.[52] Mrs. Hill was quite lucid when she declared that the only secret service agents she spoke to was when she was held at the County Courthouse. No story of any altercation on the hill with secret service agents was ever indicated. That is, until the story of unidentified men had become sufficiently publicly known and Mrs. Hill had become the fancy of assassination researchers. By 1988 Mrs. Hill was describing a completely different incident as that probably occurred, at least to her.
Appearing as a guest on Geraldo's JFK 25th anniversary program Jean Hill told of her heroic attempts to capture the running man and encountering secret service agents demanding she halt her pursuit and turn over copies of photographs within her pocket. When Mrs. Hill rejected this request the man "put some sort of hold" on her neck which was "extremely painful." After another man joined them and utilized a similar hold on her other shoulder they forced her to accompany them to the Courthouse and smile as if nothing was wrong. In an article written for the anniversary Mrs. Hill was quoted as stating that "a guy in plain clothes came up to me and flashed some I.D. on me. He said he was with the Secret Service. He said, 'You need to come with me'—and took me over to the Sheriff's office to question me."[53] Unfortunately, this scene was memorialized by Oliver Stone in the 1991 film JFK and has led to a dramatic increase in Mrs. Hill's suggested importance to the conspiracy movement.
Notwithstanding the fact that in 1963–64, when the events were current, Mrs. Hill described how she returned to Ms. Moorman's side only to find her being hassled by Mr. Featherstone. It was he who directed them both to the press room in the Courthouse but Mrs. Hill now apparently fails to understand the significance in these discrepancies nor has explained them.[54] This is so because she more than likely cannot tell the difference between her true memories and her false memories. Both appear as vivid as the next.
The events that occurred to Mrs. Hill and Ms. Moorman have also been subject to transformation over the years although the premise of the story appears to be based upon actual factual circumstances that have become distorted. After being taken to the courthouse by Mr. Featherstone Mrs. Hill and Ms. Moorman were questioned, and by her account literally harassed, by members of the press and local and federal law enforcement agents over what they had seen, heard and, most importantly, the photographs Ms. Moorman had taken. By her own account:
I had realized we were in a pressroom and that he [Featherstone] had no right to be holding us and he had no authority and that we could get out of there, and they kept standing in front of the door, and I told him—I said, "Get out." … And so I jerked away and ran out of the door and as I did, there was a Secret Service man. Now, this I was told—that he was a Secret Service man, and he said, "Do you have a red raincoat?" And, I said, "Yes; it's in yonder. Let me go." … He said, "Does your friend have a blue raincoat?" And I said, "Yes, she's in there." He said, "Here they are," to somebody else and they told us that they had been looking for us.[55]
Apparently, someone was under the impression that Ms. Moorman had been hit by one of the shots. The following discourse then occurred between Mr. Specter and Mrs. Hill:
Mrs. Hill. [A]nd I talked with this man, a Secret Service man, and I said, "Am I a kook or what's wrong with me?" I said, "They keep saying three shots—three shots," and I said, "I know I heard more. I heard from four to six shots anyway."
He said, "Mrs. Hill, we were standing at the window and we heard more shots also, but we have three wounds and we have three bullets, three shots is all that we are willing to say right now."
Mr. Specter. Now, did that Secret Service man try to suggest to you that there were only three shots in any other way than that?
Mrs. Hill. That's all he said to me. He didn't say, "You have to say three shots"—he didn't tell me what to say.
Mr. Specter. He didn't try to intimidate you or coerce you in any way?
Mrs. Hill. No; that's all he said.[56]
In 1992, the encounter had taken a dramatic turn as Mrs. Hill herself wrote in her "historical documentation" (of which it is noted that Ms. Moorman's recollections of the period do not coincide with those of Mrs. Hill):
"How many shots did you hear?" "I'd say at least four to six. Maybe more." The man stared coldly at her for a moment. "That's ridiculous," he said. "You had to be hearing echoes, not shots. We can account for only three bullets, and that means there were only three shots, maximum. The evidence shows they were all fired from a window in a building overlooking the site, not fired from this 'grassy knoll' of yours."
"All I know is I heard more than three shots and at least one of them came from behind the fence at the top of the knoll," Jean said. "Why are you treating me this way, like I'm a criminal or something? Why do you keep asking me these questions if you don't want to hear my answers? "Because your answers are wrong—and potentially dangerous," the interrogator said, "They'll only confuse matters, and they could cause you a lot of grief if you aren't careful." He shook his head in disgust and disbelief.[57]
Finally, caution must be advised with respect to acceptance of Mrs. Hill's statements that she witnessed a flash of light, a puff of smoke and a gunman in the act of firing from the knoll or behind the picket fence. Nowhere in any of her written or public accounts during the 1960s is there evidence of any such statements attributed to Mrs. Hill. Yet by 1978, Mrs. Hill was telling stories of seeing smoke "like from a gun" coming from the knoll.[58] Ten years later there was now a distinct individual—a gunmen—behind the fence, according to Jean Hill.[59] The passage of four more years, into 1992, brings the inference, at least publicly, to include a flash of light at the moment of the fatal head shot.[60] But the culmination of her story is recounted in her own book where the dramatic events join together as if the jigsaw puzzle was finally complete: "It was a sight that was destined to haunt her for the rest of her life: A muzzle flash, a puff of smoke, and the shadowy figure of a man holding a rifle, barely visible above the wooden fence at the top of the knoll, still in the very act or murdering the president of the United States."[61]
This elaboration of detail is exactly opposite of what the memory model predicts—at least in regards to recollections uninterfered with and unblended with subsequent experiences. Part of this elaboration may have involved the motivation to present a coherent account of events: Mrs. Hill, after all, has to account for why she ran towards the knoll.[62] Part may have been due to the real possibility of retroactive interference accomplished through interview-after-interview, some conducted under stressful conditions. Still another plausible reason is the effect those who were sympathetic to the theories of conspiracy had upon her memory over the years.[63]
From the time the shots rang out, a witness's short-term memory would have been close to or over its storage capacity: four to six shots; details of the appearance of the running man; Mary Moorman's comments; Mrs. Hill's encounter with Mr. Featherstone; the massive confusion erupting all around Dealey Plaza, etc. There appears to be precious little opportunity for the kind of elaborative rehearsal necessary to place such details into long-term memory. By her account, Mrs. Hill underwent a remarkable amount of events within a short time span.[64]
Unless Mrs. Hill possesses supernormal memory attributes, she seems not to have been able to engage in either repetitive or elaborative rehearsal. She also seems likely to have suffered interferences of later experiences retroactively on whatever initial recall was present. Furthermore, much in her account can be interpreted in a way that does not violate the known principles of memory. The new and exciting details coming forth during the 1980s and particularly those contained in Mrs. Hill's book cannot be considered without very, very serious reservations. They directly contradict the inevitable simplification of memories over time and very curiously mimic descriptions of events that more or less came to prominence in the 1980s—a fence assassin replete with muzzle blast where none was before, references to the unproven existence of the figure known as "Badgeman," suspicious civilians with "secret service" credentials, etc.
It appears that Mrs. Hill is incorporating new revelations about the assassination into her memory framework. It cannot be denied such blends fit but it is of great importance that such details were not elaborated or even mentioned in her earlier statements or during the first fifteen years following the assassination. In fact, many of her statements now not only contradict the official explanation or statements of other eyewitnesses but contradict the most important witness of them all: Jean Hill.
No matter what members of the research community may think of the conclusions of this article, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that human memories are fallible. There can be no doubt that eyewitnesses, no matter how confident and sincere they may be, can be wrong in their description of an event or a person. And there cannot be any doubt that because of this unreliability innocent people have suffered and the truth has been inadvertently diverted.
"Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretative realities … it is not fixed and immutable … but a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again, an amoebalike creature with powers to make us laugh, and cry, and clench our fists. Enormous powers—powers even to make us believe in something that never happened."[65] This power led one legal text to report that forty-five percent of the convictions that were examined were the result of mistaken eyewitness identification.[66] A 1983 doctoral dissertation estimated that 0.5 percent of people arrested and charged for what the FBI calls "indexed crimes"[67] are wrongfully convicted. While that number appears to be statistically insignificant, it amounts to nearly 10,000 innocent people each year being convicted of a crime they did not commit.[68]
The Statesman Samuel Johnson once wrote "[I]t is more from carelessness about truth than from intentional lying, that there is so much falsehood in the world." If assassination researchers strive to understand the many influences and factors that tend to structure our memories and perceptions, then perhaps one day we may become closer to discovering what happened on November 22, 1963. But if we continue to unequivocally accept the stories that are told by eyewitnesses and allow such stories to be spread without challenge, then perhaps we are destined to remain as "assassination buffs" rather than as "researchers" or "scholars."
Postscript: In December of 1992, it was announced that ABC television was developing the television movie "JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness" based upon the book by Jean Hill.
* Professor of Psychology, Kean College, 3247 Kennedy Blvd., Jersey City, New Jersey 07306.
** Attorney-At-Law, Albany, New York, 47 South Lake Avenue, Ste. #4, Albany, New York 12203.
[1] Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas (1967). On record indicates that the witness either testified before the Warren Commission or its staff or spoke with a law enforcement officer whose report was placed into the Commission's files. Id. at 26. Of course, since Thompson's work additional witnesses have come forward.
[2] For example see Jean Hill, JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness (1992) [hereinafter cited as Hill]; Howard Leslie Brennan, Eyewitness To History (1987); Roger Craig, When They Kill A President (1971) (unpublished manuscript).
[3] Katherine W. Ellison & Robert Buckhout, Psychology And Criminal Justice 80 (1981).
[4] Gardner, D.S., 50 J. Crim. L. & Police Sci. 20 (1959) cited in Taylor, Eyewitness Identification 2 (1982).
[5] Consider the results of a study undertaken by the renowned criminal jurist Lord Patrick Devlin in 1973 which involved the use of a lineup. Of 850 individuals chosen from a lineup 82% were eventually convicted before a jury. In 347 of the cases the only incriminating evidence was the identification. Yet the conviction rate in these cases was a resounding 74%. In half of these trials, there was only one witness. Devlin, P., et al., "Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases" (1976), as cited in Taylor, at 3.
[6] One reason perhaps is that because people generally trust their own memories they then often place their trust in the memories of others. Another reason is that people are just not aware of how many different factors influence the accuracy of memory recall. Elizabeth Loftus & Patrick Doyle, Eyewitness Testimony: Civil And Criminal 26 (1987) [hereinafter cited as Loftus & Doyle].
[7] Loftus, "Reconstructing Memory: The Incredible Eyewitness," 8 Psychology Today 116 (1974) as cited in Loftus & Doyle, supra note 6, at 24. Another interesting study involved a mock crime which witnesses viewed unaware of what was to transpire. The incident, a theft of a wallet, merely lasted a few minutes. Id. Afterwards the witnesses were asked to describe the thief and identify her from a set of photos. A second group of participants acted as jurors and were then told about what had occurred. The "jurors" were to decide which witnesses were correct after watching the witnesses be cross-examined. Id. at 25. The results indicated that the jurors believed the witnesses 80% of the time, yet this was so whether the witness was mistaken in their identification of the criminal or had made a correct observation. It appeared that those witnesses who were highly confident in their testimony were believed more often than those who appeared unsure. However, there is no measurable correlation between the confidence of a witness and their accuracy. Id.
[8] Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony (1979). Dr. Loftus, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, is considered to be the preeminent pioneer in the field of memory research.
[9] For instance not one of the many conferences, at least in recent years, held in Dallas, Chicago or elsewhere have ever discussed the veracity of the evidence derived from eyewitness testimony whether in support of Oswald's complicity or against. Even the April 1993 Midwest Symposium on Political Assassinations' panel convened to discuss exactly this type of evidence failed to mention the unreliability of eyewitness perception.
[10] John P. House, Fundamentals Of Learning And Memory (1991).
[11] "One reason that we forget is that we never store the information we want to remember in the first place. Because we do not pay enough attention to it, it is lost from our memory system in a matter of seconds." Loftus & Doyle, supra note 6, at 73.
[12] Similar caution must be exercised with respect to the sightings of Ruby in Dealey Plaza.
[13] Deffenbacker, "On the Memorability of the Human Face," in Aspects of Face Processing (1985) [hereinafter cited as Deffenbacker].
[14] These types of memories are sometimes called "flashbulb memories." Loftus & Doyle, supra note 6, at 44.
[16] One example of this would be the actions of Bill and Gayle Newman who immediately upon hearing the shots attempted to shield their children by falling to the ground and covering them.
[17] Id. at 46.
[18] For example, eyewitness Emmett Hudson testified that the assassination took place during a span of two minutes. Hearings Before The President's Commission On The Assassination Of President Kennedy, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: 1964, Vol. VII at 585 [hereinafter cited as W.C. followed by the volume and page number]. Another witness, J. C. Price, felt the shooting continued for over five minutes. W.C. Vol. XIX at 492.
[19] In one study subjects watched a forty-two second film in which a man was chased away from the scene by a woman. When the subjects were questioned one week later on the average the subjects estimated that the event had lasted about a minute and a half. Id. at 37 citing J. Marshall, Law And Psychology In Conflict (1966).
[20] Loftus & Doyle, supra note 6, at 38 citing Loftus, Schooler, Boone & Kline, "Time Went by so Slowly: Overestimation of Event Duration by Males and Females," 1 Applied Cognitive Psychology 3 (1987).
[21] Arnolds, Carroll, Lewis & Seng, Eyewitness Testimony: Strategies & Tactics 4 fn. 9 (1984) [hereinafter cited as Arnolds].
[22] As a side note, without passing judgment on the credibility of Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, while some evidence does exist that special training, such as that undertaken by law enforcement personnel, may assist in the noticing of special details, most studies demonstrate that between lay persons and police the retention of memory is no different. See for example Clifford, "Police as Eyewitnesses," 36 New Soc'y 176 (1976).
[23] For instance, in her testimony Jean Hill admits that her "story is probably colored by what I have heard." W.C. Vol. VI at 208.
[24] Even the mannerisms of an interviewer may have an extraordinary impact on a witness's memory. Depending upon how an interviewer exchanges glances, nods or vocalizes questions may convey a sense of opinion to the witness as to whether the details they are expressing are correct or not. In fact, witnesses many times assume that if a question is not asked the answer is unimportant. That assumption, of course, may be seriously flawed. Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony 90 (1979).
[25] Loftus & Doyle, supra note 6, at 76. Over seventy years of tests have definitively confirmed how persuasive an influence questions can be. Questions such as "Did you see the gun?" or "Did you see the broken headlight?" would more often lead to erroneous "yes" responses than would questions asking "Did you see a gun?" or "Did you see a broken headlight?" Lawyers are well aware of the persuasiveness of their words. This is why the federal rules of evidence does not permit the use of leading questions with witnesses who might be receptive to suggestions (such as their own witness). Leading questions are permitted, however, with hostile witnesses who are more likely to resist the suggestion.
[26] Common everyday examples include: married couples tend to overestimate the extent of their responsibility for household chores; those who have engaged in conversation tend to overestimate the extent to which they contributed to the conversation; and people generally remember themselves as having held a higher level of job, received higher pay, purchased fewer alcoholic beverages, contributed more to charity, taken more airplane trips and raised smarter-than-average children. Loftus & Doyle, supra note 6, at 83.
[27] See Schooler, Gerhard & Loftus, "Qualities of the Unreal," 12 J. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 171–81 (1986).
[28] See Bahrick, "Memory For People," in Everyday Memory, Actions And Absentmindedness 19 (1983).
[30] Deffenbacker, supra note 13 (emphasis added).
[31] The possibility that an unconscious transference occurred in the witness is also a factor to explore. The term is used to refer to the phenomenon in which a person seen in one situation is confused with or recalled as a person seen in a second situation.
[32] For examples of analyses on the acoustical origins of the shots, see Harold Feldman, Fifty-one Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll (1965); Thompson, Six Seconds In Dallas at 254–71; Letter of James E. Barger, Chief Scientist, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. to Professor Robert Blakey, Former Chief Counsel, HSCA, dated February 18, 1983, reprinted in full in: Harrison E. Livingstone, High Treason 2 612–617 (1992).
[33] Arnolds, supra note 20, at 85 citing Woodworth & Schlossberg, Experimental Psychology 350 (1958).
[35] Loftus & Doyle, supra note 6, at 25–26.
[36] Geiselman, Fisher, Mackinnon & Holland, "Enhancement of Eyewitness Memory With the Cognitive Interview," 70 J. Applied Psychology 401 (1985), cited in Loftus & Doyle, supra note 6, at 92.
[37] Orne, Soskis, Dinges & Orne, "Hypnotically Induced Testimony," in G.L. Wells & E.F. Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives 171 (1984).
[38] See Milton E. Brener, The Garrison Case 97–109 (1969). But see Jim Garrison, On The Trail Of The Assassins 155–58 (1988).
[39] The authors are indebted to Canadian researcher Peter Whitmey for his meticulous analysis of Mrs. Hill's statements throughout the years in his work, "Jean Hill—the Lady in Red" (March 23, 1993) (unpublished manuscript) which he was kind enough to share with us.
[40] The interview appeared in the Dallas Times Herald's late edition on November 22, 1963 at page 17.
[41] Her statement, along with Mary Moorman's, appears within Decker Exhibit No. 5323, W.C. Vol. XIX at 479.
[45] Id.; Testimony of Jean Hill, W.C. Vol. VI at 214; and Dallas Times Herald, November 22, 1963 at 17.
[46] For example see W.C. Vol. VII at 107 (testimony of Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman); Id. at 535 (testimony of Patrolman J.M. Smith).
[47] The Final Assassinations Report 228–230 (Bantam edition, 1979).
[48] The misconstruction of Mrs. Hill's memories, or of any of the eyewitnesses', is certainly not only the fault, deliberate or otherwise, of the research community. Beginning almost immediately following the assassination the media began to address the possibility of other scenarios and many eyewitnesses were faced with never ending requests, and therefore suggestions, for alternative explanations. Mrs. Hill told of one such instance that occurred approximately ten days after the assassination. A television camera crew came to her house and offered her hypothetical situations. Due to this line of questioning Mrs. Hill got "the idea from them, that there was speculation or some reasonable doubt that I—that Oswald did not do all the shooting and that all these shots did not come from the window." W.C. Vol. VI at 218.
[49] Id. at 213. Mrs. Hill apparently thought that some of the shots she heard were being directed by the secret service towards this running man. She came to this conclusion from "the TV and the movies" because when "somebody shoots at somebody they always shoot back…." Id. at 209. Mrs. Hill's explanation that she was intent on catching this "suspect," while certainly possible, does not accord with what might be expected of a young woman and contradicts the literature on diffusion of responsibility in emergencies. See J.M. Darley and B. Latane, "Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility," 8 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology 377–383. It does accord with the movie-like aspect of the testimony.
[50] Mrs. Hill based her identification on the fact that the man "looked a lot like—I would say the general build as I would think Jack Ruby would from that position." W.C. Vol. VI at 212.
[51] Psychologists have termed these types of occurrences as "event factors"—those factors inherent within a specific event that can alter perception and distort memory. Expectations and anticipations play a large role in these determinations. A tragic example of these types of cases occurred in rural Montana when two young hunters were returning home one evening after hunting for bears. As they were walking they were talking about bears when just off the trail they heard noises and saw a large object. Thinking it was a bear they fired their rifles in that direction. Instead the "bear" was a man and a woman in a yellow tent making love. The woman was killed. When the case was before a jury the jurors could not reconcile how someone could mistake a yellow tent for a bear and found one of the young men guilty on a count of negligent homicide. In the dark and in this young man's mind, however, it was a bear. Loftus, Witness For The Defense 22 (1991) [hereinafter, Loftus, Defense].
[52] W.C. Vol. VII at 535–37.
[53] Oxford, "Destiny in Dallas," American Illustrated History, November 1988, at 16.
[54] Although in all fairness to Mrs. Hill she has publicly stated that her testimony, as printed in the Commission Hearings, has been altered.
[55] WC Vol. VI at 220. She then told Mr. Specter that "when we were in the pressroom it was just our own ignorance, really, that was keeping us there and letting the man intimidate us that had no authority." Id.
[56] Id. at 221 [emphasis added]. It is more likely that these men did not make reference to the number of wounds inflicted upon the President but the fact that only three cartridge shells were found underneath the sixth floor window. In actuality, there was a person telling Mrs. Hill what she should or should not say. It was Mr. Featherstone of the Dallas Times Herald. Id. at 222.
[57] Hill, supra note 2, at 30.
[58] Summers, Conspiracy 61 (1980).
[59] Geraldo (television broadcast November 22, 1988). Mrs. Hill also volunteered the information that it was a rifle blast that came from behind the fence.
[60] Oprah Winfrey (television broadcast 1991); JFK Conspiracy: Final Analysis (Fox television broadcast hosted by James Earl Jones, 1992).
[61] Hill, supra note 2, at 23 [emphasis added].
[62] From her testimony to Arlen Specter and her later accounts one is left with the impression that Mrs. Hill was the only person, besides that of the running man, who ran towards the railroad yards. Of course, this is not true as many photographs and films prove otherwise. In fact, Bond Slide #4 contradicts Mrs. Hill's statements that she stood her ground firm during the shooting and then immediately ran after this mystery man. The picture clearly shows Mrs. Hill sitting or crouching on the grass after the shots had ceased. Another example of how violent events distort the perception of time and memory.
[63] For instance, as was explained earlier, the mere phrasing of a question might have had an impressive effect upon Mrs. Hill's recollections. "Did you see the man behind the fence shooting the President, Mrs. Hill?" "Didn't you see the smoke?"
[64] Sometimes, perhaps, the research community in addition to applying the appropriate physical or psychological laws should also apply the principles of common sense. Why would these events, as described by Jean Hill, have occurred to her and only her? What is it that Mrs. Hill could have seen that no one else did? Exactly what information could she alone possess that would necessitate the threatening of her life? Were there not other eyewitnesses with better vantage points than she? Have there not been other eyewitnesses that have held similar viewpoints? No matter how you view her credibility she is certainly not the "last dissenting witness" to the assassination.
[65] Loftus, Defense supra note 49, at 20.
[66] Id. at 26, citing Borchard, Convicting The Innocent (1932).
[67] These include murder, robbery, forcible rape, larceny, assault and arson.


Lifting Gantry Crane For Sale Has Various Types Reliable Quality Reasonable Design Low Price Best Choice For Lifting Work!
Lifting gantry crane is a cost-effective lifting equipment. It is widely applied for loading, unloading and transporting material in warehouse, factory, producing line, construction site. High-quality lifting cranes and low price lifting cranes are top choices for customers. Ellsen Group, one of famous lifting material crane manufacturers, provides lifting gantry for sale, such as industrial crane, double girder warehouse gantry crane, durable semi gantry crane, powerful motorized gantry crane.
How to buy top lifting gantry with affordable price?
Quality and price are main factors of crane. It takes some skills to purchase reliable crane with reasonable price.
Choose a professional China lifting crane manufacturer, like Ellsen. Ellsen Group has strong team and advanced technology to make sure great design and complete safety protection device. Ellsen has much experience about producing and exporting. Ellsen produces gantry cranes according to national standards.
Products made in China is much cheaper. Choose a China lifting cranes manufacturer and get the lowest lifting material crane price. China lifting gantries are popular for excellent performance and ideal price!
1.Hook rotary turning state should be checked by hand regularly. The hook should be lightweight and flexible.
2.Check the decoupling device by hand to make sure reliable.
3.The trolley should be equipped with protection cover. It works without abnormal sound.
4.Bolt and pin should be checked in certain time. They are not loose or movable.
5.The weariness of dangerous section is less than 10% of original size.
6.Semi-annual electromagnetic powder controlling damage for crack.
7.Check wide-degree of hook timely, it can't exceed 5% of original size.
8.Unload the nut and check the crack.
9.Bearing shaft and bush can't have crack or serious weariness.
5. Fast installation, easy operation.


text:
Colony of Endangered Big-eared Bats Grows
A hibernation colony of endangered Virginia big-eared bats (Plecotus townsendii virginianus) has grown from 17 to 139 bats according to a December 1988 survey. Since construction of a protective gate in 1986, the population has doubled each year.
The colony was first discovered in western North Carolina in the early 1980's and at the time was thought to be a new colony of Eastern big-eared bats (P. rafinesquii). But a few years later, at the North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Mary K. Clark, curator of mammals and a member of BCI, discovered a misidentified P. rafinesquii in the museum's collection and determined it to be P. t. virginianus instead. What puzzled her was that the specimen had been collected in western North Carolina, a state where the species had never been seen. She called another BCI member, Bob Currie, a wildlife biologist with the Endangered Species Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bob remembered the earlier, unconfirmed discovery of an Eastern big-eared bat colony in North Carolina and together, he and Mary Kay made arrangements to visit the cave in January of 1985. What they found instead were 33 hibernating Virginia big-eared bats, the first confirmed discovery outside of West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky.
The USFWS moved quickly to protect the colony and install a gate to prevent human intrusion while the bats were present. The Service obtained a cooperative agreement with Grandfather Mountain, Inc., who owns the cave, and with funding from the National Park Service and the help of local volunteers, a gate was completed in late summer of 1986. That winter, a survey counted 62 bats in hibernation, double from the previous count two winters earlier before the gate was installed. Such population growth is significant in a species known only to number 10,000 bats.
Bats, Bacteria and Biotechnology
Help for Townsend's Big-Eared Bats in California
vBat Conservation in California
BCI's New "Bats of America" Program
Found and Lost: The Rare Florida Mastiff Bat
Education Series on Bats of America
Conservation Success in Czechoslovakia
Eighteen U.S. Bats Candidates for Listing
New Activities in BCI's Science Program
America's Neighborhood Bats Sales are Strong
"Mark Trail" Comic Strip Takes Another Look at Bats


The Department of Family Medicine, which belongs to the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (LUHS) Medical Academy, is a scientific and practical base for residents of family medicine. The Department has two modules which are based on theoretical teaching as well as practical training for students from Public Health, Medicine, Nursing and faculty of Odontology.
Residency training programme consists of 16 specialized cycles. The longest cycle is Family Medicine. It lasts approximately 1.5 years and it is divided into several areas of activities. Such as work at the Family Medicine Clinic where residens improve their theoretical knowledge and practical skills, then 3 months - at private clinic, where residents are introduced to work planning, structure and the principles of work, clinical practice. Also 3 months at outpatient department with a big number of patients. 3 months – medical practice at rural area.
Each resident has a residency supervisor - a family doctor who he works with. According to resident's skills, knowledge, activity, capability of working with the patients, a certain level of independency will be given. Currently Family Medicine Clinic has several rooms where residents work independently, however, the help and advice will be given by a doctor when it will be necessary.
- Lithuania - Swiss Cooperation Programme project CH-3-ŠMM-01/07 "Family doctors training in consuling patients about healthy lifestyles"
- LUHS-VDU project TABESORI - Cross-sectoral cooperation in addressing the health problems of social isolated groups in the population.
If the patients who has an acute medical problems which occurs when family doctor is off-duty, patient will be directed to the emergency room.
The clinic provides prenatal health care, preventive child health care and immunizations. Patient can be consulted by the psychiatrist and psychologist if needed.
Durring Family Clinic off-duty hours patients are directed to the Kaunas Hospital emergency department. Durring the weekend and holidays patient may get family doctor's on-call consultation by phone.


Flexfit will be on hand hosting a custom cap station where customers can personalize caps with a moniker of their choice, during the Travis Mathew Fathers Day event. Names are heat-transferred onto the side of a Travis Mathew x Flexfit hat with reflective vinyl. The event will take place at the Travis Mathew retail store at Fashion Island in Newport Beach CA on June 20.


What are the guidelines for a pastor's health savings account and is it reported as a benefit or taxable income?
We pay the monthly health insurance premiums (MediShare) for our pastor and his wife and up until now have never shown it as income. I assume that is still legal since many employers pay the cost of insurance premiums for their employees without the employee being taxed on that benefit. I don't know if there is a difference for payments into a health savings account on behalf of the pastor.
The contributions to the HSA should not be considered taxable income, but should be included on the W-2 in box 12 with a W as a reference.


text:
game.reload_script()

for index, force in pairs(game.forces) do
  force.reset_technologies()
  if force.technologies["useful-combinators"].researched then
    force.recipes["random-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["comparator-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["converter-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["timer-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["counting-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["min-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["max-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["and-gate-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["or-gate-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["not-gate-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["nand-gate-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["nor-gate-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["xor-gate-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["xnor-gate-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["detector-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["sensor-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["railway-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["color-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["emitter-combinator"].enabled = true
    force.recipes["receiver-combinator"].enabled = true
  end
end


In 2019 we return to London, UK, for Communications Policy & Regulation Week (CPR Week). CPR Week addresses 'big picture' themes that affect the communications community and comprises the International Regulators' Forum 2019 (hosted by Ofcom) and the IIC's 50th Annual Conference.
As well as the Annual Conference and the International Regulators' Forum, there will be workshops, networking events and private meetings. These enable delegates to maximise their opportunities to learn, network with peers, and build key relationships which last well beyond CPR Week.


text:
wittyludwig
Sraffa & Wittgenstein – An exchange
Piero Sraffa is generally known to be one of the few intellectual influences Wittgenstein acknowledged in respect to his philosophies and, whilst anecdotes are often mentioned in texts and biographies, I was reminded of one of their exchanges via letter the other day when watching a mundane piece on fashion on the BBC one morning. Aside from being echoed in the Blue and Brown books, I haven't seen this given attention elsewhere. I thought I would share it here in case of interest. This features amongst a collection of his letters and documents:
Notes for P. Sraffa, [21.2.1934]
I think that writing down my arguments might possibly be the only way of making it worthwhile expressing them all.- For correct or incorrect I believe they are in most cases worth hearing and properly considering & the mere fact that I know they are wasted on you when I just say them fills me with a kind of despair while I'm stating them. It's like trying hard to fill a barrel which has no bottom.
I don't mean to say that I'm sure that you get something out of an argument of mine if it's written down. But it's just conceivable; for you've got time then to do with it what you please and you won't throw it away as easily as if you just hear it.
Is it a correct argument to say that the Germans cannot live contentedly or prosperously in a republic because they are a monarchist people? One could deal that argument a blow by asking, "wouldn't you have said exactly the same of the French people under Louis XIV?" This argument reminds me of something apparently quite unconnected with it. If one asks the question "why does fashion (say the fashion of dressing) change", most people would answer: Because the taste changes. They would say people dress as they do because they now like to dress this way. But this, in most cases, is wrong or it means nothing. People dress as they do for lots of different reasons: because they see other people dressing in this way, because their tailor just makes the suit as he does and they would have dressed differently had he made the dress according to a different model. Even the tailors who design the new models can't be simply said to design the ones they do because they like them. They may think them more suitable or instinctively design them as they do etc. etc. Of course it happens that a man chooses between different models, likes one better than the others and has his suit made accordingly. Now the fallacy which I want to point out is this, – to think every action which people do is preceded by a particular state of mind of which the action is the outcome. So they will not be contented to say that the tailors draw one model this year and a slightly different one next year and that this has all sorts of reasons, but they will say that there was a state of mind, the taste, the liking which changed; and regard the act of designing the model as a secondary thing (the state of mind being the primary one). As though the changed taste did not amongst other things consist just in designing what they did design. The fallacy could be described by saying that one presupposes a mental reservoir in which the real causes of our actions are kept. Now this connects up with our first question because one is tempted to think of such a reservoir, I.E. "the mentality of a people" and when one speaks of changes which the Government of a country might undergo one imagines this thing, the mentality, not to alter.
Supposing one asked the question: "Is a King possible without a crown?" Here one might be tempted to say"No, because it doesn't fit the character of a King not to have a crown, or it doesn't fit into the physiognomy of Royalty if the King hasn't a crown." But the answer to this is really "Well that physiognomy will just change and there will be Kings without crowns." If one says, "Germany can't change into a proper Republic because this is not like the Germans not like their physiognomy as I see it. The fallacy in this argument is, I suppose, that one then (in a sense unconsciously) presupposes that a certain kind of characteristics (which forms the mentality or is its expression) won't change. The fallacy roughly speaking is to think that if the unexpected things happened the people would have no face, NO physiognomy.
If I had observed a body moving in a circle and it had just completed its first round like this
then I might be so strongly impressed by this picture that it would seem to me impossible that the body when it continues its movement should move in anything but the same circular path again. For, I should argue, its motion has the physiognomy of a circle. But suppose it continued this way
OO [in the letter, the circles are touching]
then of course this hasn't the old physiognomy but a very simple new one and as soon as I see it I will again be tempted to think that now the body must obviously move on in the shape of an eight.
It will therefore be correct to say, as you did: "If you want to know what will happen with Germany, don't argue from its physiognomy and things like this." But not because this physiognomy is too vague. Not at all. But because in arguing from the physiognomy one argues from a prejudice that certain things will not change, although there is no reason to suppose they won't.
We store away impressions in our mind, certain standards (such as that of the King with a crown) and are inclined to think that everything we may meet must conform with these standards. But if we met with a Kingdom in which the King has no crown we would soon enough put this in our collection of standards too.
I will provide Sraffa's response in another post when I can find the time.
Another Wittgenstein-Kierkegaard Connection: Laugh If You Can — Eric Linus Kaplan
It is well known that Wittgenstein admired Kierkegaard, thought he was the greatest thinker of the nineteenth century and a saint, although towards the end of his life he got fed up with how constantly teasing Kierkegaard's writing is. (Kierkegaard thought this was positive — his writing was teasing the way existence is teasing). I […]
via Another Wittgenstein-Kierkegaard Connection: Laugh If You Can — Eric Linus Kaplan
The Danger of Words; Drury
Yet to purchase the book (I can't seem to find it anywhere for less than £100), I spent a great deal of Saturday reading this in the British Library.
Of particular interest were his memoirs– I remember Monk commenting that this work was the most Wittgensteinian of anything written by his students and, as much as this becomes apparent quite quickly in his writing, the memoirs, too, are distinct. There is something that little bit more personal about the recollections and it is the way Drury decides that little things are worth commenting on (Wittgenstein's comment on the lighting at dusk; the writer's observation of Skinner delicately returning the bugs and slugs to the garden when washing lettuce; the comment L.W. made when giving him a silver cup as a gift; etc.). These little things that he considers important to mention give a great insight into Drury himself. Where others (Rhees; Bouwsma; et al.) aren't sure what made Wittgenstein keen on their friendship, it is very easy to see why these two were friends.
A great deal of their discussions focused on religion, which of course was particularly interesting for me. Especially the discussions on Catholicism and how Drury was clearly haunted to some extent over his decision in respect to Wittgenstein's funeral arrangements. I found myself thinking about it at a funeral at the Brompton Oratory yesterday. It is a harsh and uncompromising faith.
Reblogged: Wittgenstein & the Mad Tea Party of Wonderland
Source: Wittgenstein & the Mad Tea Party of Wonderland
On 12 June 1940, as the Germans broke through the French lines and
Paris lay open before their advance, [Isaiah] Berlin went on to
deliver a paper on `Other Minds' to the Moral Sciences club
in Cambridge. In Oxford, the imminent fall of France was on
everyone's mind. In Cambridge, the otherworldliness of the dons
was unreal.
All of the Cambridge philosophers turned out – Braithwaite,
Broad, Ewing, Moore, Wisdom and a sixth figure, small and handsome of
feature, who appeared surrounded with acolytes in tweed jackets and
white open-necked shirts identical to his own. This was Ludwig
Wittgenstein. Berlin delivered his paper on the problem of how one
could have knowledge of others' inner mental states. It was, he
remembered `terribly boring'. After a few initial questions,
Wittgenstein became impatient and took over the discussion. Berlin
remembered him saying `No, no, that is not the way to go about it
at all. Let me see. Don't let's talk philosophy. Let's talk business
with each other. Ordinary business. In ordinary circs, I say to
you, "You see a clock. The minute hand and the hour hand are both
nailed to the clock face to certain ciphers. The whole face goes
round, but the time remains the same." No? That is solipsism.'
It was idiotic, Wittgenstein was saying, to claim that time had
stopped simply because the hands of the clock remained motionless.
Time changed whatever the clocks, whatever the sense data happened to
record. This was a vintage demolition of Ayer's type of
verificationism. No one else spoke. `Broad sat there like a
boiled lobster looking angry. G.E. Moore, old and decrepit, looked
open-mouthed.' Isaiah parried as best he could and the acolytes
hung on every word and dared not interrupt. After an hour,
Wittgenstein rose to his feet, his acolytes rose with him, and he
leaned over the table and shook Isaiah's hands. `Very
interesting discussion. Thank you.' With that, other participants
crowded around and said how rare it was to be complimented in this
way. But Berlin was not fooled. Wittgenstein hadn't been much
impressed with the paper or Isaiah's arguments afterwards. But he
did seem to think that Berlin had been honest and sincere, not trying
to show off, as Freddie Ayer might have done. Wittgenstein's
judgment was Berlin's own, and their encounter marked the
symbolic, if not the actual, end of Isaiah's active philosophical
career.
(Memorandum of interview, Michael Ignatieff with Isaiah
Berlin, 7 Feb 1990)
Two sorts of people
Seeing as I took the time to find this and type it out a moment ago in response to someone's post, I thought I would take the time to record it here:
" An examiner once said to me: 'Sir Arthur Keith once remarked to me that the reason why the spleen drained into the portal system was of the greatest importance; but he never told me what that importance was, now can you tell me?' I had to confess that I couldn't see any anatomical or physiological significance in this fact. The examiner then went on to say: 'Do you think there must be a significance, an explanation? As I see it there are two sorts of people: one man sees a bird sitting on a telegraph wire and says to himself: "Why is that bird sitting just there?", the other man replies "Damn it all, the bird has to sit somewhere"
The reason why this story pleased Wittgenstein was that it made clear the distinction between scientific clarity and philosophical clarity.[…] Scientific explanations lead us on indefinitely from one inexplicable to another, so that the building grows and grows and grows, and we never find a real resting place. Philosophical clarity puts a full-stop to our enquiry and restlessness by showing that our quest is in one sense mistaken. "
Relieving the mental cramp
I hadn't read this quote in a while until re-reading Malcolm's memoir. I do very much like it.
What I give is the morphology of the use of an expression. I show that it has kinds of uses of which you had not dreamed. In philosophy one feels forced to look at a concept in a certain way. What I do is suggest, or even invent, other ways of looking at it. I suggest possibilities of which you had not previously thought. You thought that there was one possibility, or only two at most. But I made you think of others. Furthermore, I made you see that it was absurd to expect the concept to conform to those narrow possibilities. Thus your mental cramp is relieved, and you are free to look around the field of use of the expression and to describe the different kinds of uses of it.
Duck-Rabbit War
Thought Itself
Language Games – Notes
Again: nothing exciting I'm afraid. I wrote this the other week in response to what someone wrote (quoted below) and didn't want to lose track of it. I want to keep it here for future reference. Perhaps it will be of minor interest to some.
"I am currently embroiled in a long discussion that started from how the notion of "two" is abstracted from being shown two nuts, etc.
Wittgenstein seems to favor the position that notions like "two" behave as counters in overarching language games that we internalize from social immersion. I certainly hope this is followed by at least a nominal discussion of other theories, because so far, methods like establishing positive and negative contrasts haven't even been mentioned.
By positive and negative contrasts, I mean that in theory, two-ness can initially be explained by being shown as many sets of two objects as necessary to clarify the concept, sets that vary along every axis other than number, especially those axes along which misunderstandings are likely. And if negation is understood, then also several sets of nuts that are not two in number, while being told those are not-two nuts. This can then be repeated with all words, until it becomes clear which quality each label is intended to represent."
On one hand, it's generally accepted that Wittgenstein doesn't 'theorise'. He only has an argument to the extent 'cogito ergo sum' is an *argument*. More importantly, on the other: are you sure two-ness can so easily be explained? Is it as straight forward as the method you have just described? To everyone in the modern Western world, yes, of course; but only because our lifestyles are so similarly aligned.
I'm not sure if you have interest in Chomsky et al. but you might find it interesting to explore the work of one of his students, Daniel Everett, with the Pirahã. They're one example of a culture who have no need, use, and thus concept of cardinal numbers or numerary but their language has uses for quantities (small, large, few, many, etc.). Now, unless you think that they're intrinsically and naturally incapable of numeracy, the reason that they struggle with these definitions is that they're seemingly arbitrary because mathematics is a cultural habit that they have never employed and do not employ (along with a lot of other social 'norms').
The example of positive and negative contrasts above is of course valid but is analogous to cases where, although the languages are very different, the cultures or societies between the pair are similar enough. For example, as an English speaker approaching a French speaker, I could be forgiven for the fact that when the French person is rapping his knuckles on a wooden table and saying the word 'en bois' to me that I presume that 'en bois' is the French for table. The Frenchman realises I have misinterpreted when I say 'ah!' and start tapping several glass tables in the room, gleefully exclaiming: 'Enbois! … Enbois!… Enbois!' To which he starts again: 'Non, non, non: c'est en bois et ceux-ci NE SONT PAS en bois'. And so on and so forth. I think he means the word 'flat'; I'm mistaken. I think he means 'you can eat off this'; I'm mistaken. Eventually, though, what he meant is negatively defined for me, as you suggest. This cannot work if the item (or concept) has no cultural parallel or similarity.
Now, let's pretend that the infamous French Ortolan dish, unique to their culture, was always eaten with a special dining tool that was, say, a figure 8 made of sterling silver and that our Frenchman refers to as a Pilala (this or something similar isn't that inconceivable, really, given the religious quirks surrounding the meal). What positive or negative definition process is going to teach the Englishman what this object is? You might get close with 'eating utensil' etc., but you are truly and honestly only going to *understand* what the word is if you understand its role within the culture, the rules surrounding its usage, that you can talk about it meaningfully and correctly with other people: "Ah, you see, it's a dining utensil but it is specifically used for only one meal: the Ortolan dish. A delicacy in France that is considered so sinful to eat that you wear a napkin over your head to shield what you're doing from God. As such, being such a sacrilegious meal, knives and forks are not permitted; instead one must use a pilala, which is the only implement to be used to eat the bird and which should not be used to eat anything else."
Such a social quirk doesn't have any parallels in England and the only way you would learn it is from gaining familiarity with the culture.
maurice o'drury
o'drury
the danger of words


Topsider Oil Change in 4.0L OHV?
Switching from Conventional Oil to Synthetic: How to go about it?
Manual Transmission Drain Plug Leak: Advice?
Why the frequent oil changes??
Royal Purple Marine Gear Oil?
What oil is in your crank case??
'94 4.0 oil pressure problem help fast!
usual oil change schedule. opinions?
Changed Oil Today With Pennzoil Platinum!


Brighten up your look with this stunning addition by Verpass. The top comes in brilliant tones with a striking paisley print. We love the stripe effect, perfect for elevating your look. Ideal for wearing casually with jeans and a pair of heeled boots.
Orange colour based top with a paisley print and stripe effect. 96% Viscose, 4% Elastane. Delicate Machine Wash.


text:
Q: Scroll backwards pyqtgraph while adding data I want to create a real-time plotting graph using Pyqtgraph where you can zoom in and out and pan forwards and backwards using the mouse. The problem is, every time I try to scroll backwards while there is data incoming, the graph scrolls forwards in time. How can I fix this?
Below is a GIF of the problem. You can't see the mouse but notice when I try to pan/scroll left or right, we always see the later data rather than historical data.

I have this Python3 code set up (template from pythonguis.com).
from PyQt5 import QtWidgets, QtCore
import pyqtgraph as pg
import sys  # We need sys so that we can pass argv to QApplication
from random import randint

class MainWindow(QtWidgets.QMainWindow):

    def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
        super(MainWindow, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)

        self.graphWidget = pg.PlotWidget()
        self.setCentralWidget(self.graphWidget)

        self.x = list(range(100))  # 100 time points
        self.y = [randint(0, 100) for _ in range(100)]  # 100 data points

        self.graphWidget.setBackground('w')

        pen = pg.mkPen(color=(255, 0, 0))
        self.data_line = self.graphWidget.plot(self.x, self.y, pen=pen)

        # ... init continued ...
        self.timer = QtCore.QTimer()
        self.timer.setInterval(50)
        self.timer.timeout.connect(self.update_plot_data)
        self.timer.start()

    def update_plot_data(self):
        self.x.append(self.x[-1] + 1)  # Add a new value 1 higher than the last.
        self.y.append(randint(0, 100))  # Add a new random value.

        self.data_line.setData(self.x, self.y)  # Update the data.
        self.graphWidget.setLimits(xMin=self.x[-1] - 10, xMax=self.x[-1])  # only view the last 10 points

app = QtWidgets.QApplication(sys.argv)
w = MainWindow()
w.show()
sys.exit(app.exec_())

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange