Christine Blasey Ford dishonesty zero credibility bombshell not photos,  Elizabeth Loftus UC Irvine: “need independent evidence to corroborate your memories”, Bigger story: Democrats & Fake news media used her

Christine Blasey Ford dishonesty zero credibility bombshell not photos,  Elizabeth Loftus UC Irvine: “need independent evidence to corroborate your memories”, Bigger story: Democrats & Fake news media used her

“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.
Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that
polluted vehicle.”…. Thomas Jefferson


Forget the photos of Christine Blasey Ford. We already have a revealing puzzle picture of her life beginning in high school.

She drank and partied underage and deceived her parents.

Ms. Ford needs professional help and as Mr. Kavanagh’s daughter stated “our prayers.” She is dealing with some kind(s) of emotional stress that exists in her mind.

She also must be held accountable.

If a FBI investigation could be used for example to resurrect her social media and any other scrubbed incriminating evidence to prosecute her, then do it.

When this story first was broadcast, I was hesitant to get involved.

I decided to read the Washington Post account and a series of self evident truths emerged.

From Citizen Wells September 20, 2018.

“An issue of honesty was emerging.

Christine Blasey Ford was a well educated psychological professional.

From my exposure to Psych 101 and other research I knew that human memories were extremely fallible.

Ms. Ford was educated on this matter and not being honest in her portrayal of “facts.”

From Psychology Today Mar 12, 2012.

“Unreliable Memory

“We tend to think that memories are stored in our brains just as they are in computers. Once registered, the data are put away for safe-keeping and eventual recall. The facts don’t change.

But neuroscientists have shown that each time we remember something, we are reconstructing the event, reassembling it from traces throughout the brain. Psychologists have pointed out that we also suppress memories that are painful or damaging to self-esteem. We could say that, as a result, memory is unreliable. We could also say it is adaptive, reshaping itself to accommodate the new situations we find ourselves facing. Either way, we have to face the fact that it is “flexible.”

For most of us that usually means we recall a rosier past than we actually had, though some of us are tormented by memories of a painful past we can’t shake and that seems to get worse every time we revisit them. But for all of us that means an incomplete past.

Nothing brings this home better than the memories of witnesses in trials, one of the cornerstones of our legal system. All too many people have been put behind bars on the testimony of witnesses, who when challenged by more objective data have been later proved to be misremembering.”

Ms. Ford kept changing her story before and during her testimony. She varied her accounts of the number and makeup of attendees at the gathering in her relating to Feinstein, the polygraph exam and during testimony.

She admits that she cannot recall many details.

No one that she claims attended the gathering, including her friend Leland Keyser, corroborates her story.

The show stopper, the response that reveals her dishonesty was from this testimony:

DURBIN: “Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?”

FORD: “One hundred percent.”

Ford tries to impress the audience with pseudo science:

FORD: “The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now. It’s — just basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, sort of, as you know, encodes — that neurotransmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so, the trauma-related experience, then, is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.”

FEINSTEIN: “So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?”

FORD: “Absolutely not.”

Ford is well educated. She has no excuse.

She lied!

Even people with superior memories are not immune to errors.

From the University of California, Irvine, CA, October 22, 2013.

“The recent identification of highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM) raised the possibility that there may be individuals who are immune to memory distortions.”

“HSAM individuals possess a remarkable autobiographical memory. However, these results show that even they are not immune to episodic memory distortions. Whatever the source of their exceptional autobiographical memory ability is, this does not prevent them from having memory distortions. Although it is always possible that some group might be found to be immune to memory distortions, none has as yet been discovered.”

Read more:

From Scientific American August 8, 2016.

“What Experts Wish You Knew about False Memories

Just because you’re absolutely confident you remember something accurately doesn’t mean it’s true

Every memory you have ever had is chock-full of errors. I would even go as far as saying that memory is largely an illusion.

This is because our perception of the world is deeply imperfect, our brains only bother to remember a tiny piece of what we actually experience, and every time we remember something we have the potential to change the memory we are accessing.

I often write about the ways in which our memory leads us astray, with a particular focus on ‘false memories.’ False memories are recollections that feel real but are not based on actual experience.

For this particular article I invited a few top memory researchers to comment on what they wish everyone knew about their field.

First up, we have Elizabeth Loftus from the University of California, Irvine, who is one of the founders of the area of false memory research, and is considered one of the most ‘eminent psychologists of the 20thcentury.

Elizabeth Loftus says you need independent evidence to corroborate your memories.

According to Loftus: “The one take home message that I have tried to convey in my writings, and classes, and in my TED talk is this: Just because someone tells you something with a lot of confidence and detail and emotion, it doesn’t mean it actually happened. You need independent corroboration to know whether you’re dealing with an authentic memory, or something that is a product of some other process.””

Read more:

I believe that Senator Flake could use some professional help as well.

However, if the FBI must be used, use them in the prosecution of Christine Blasey Ford to make an example.

The much bigger story is the Democrat Party and fake news media lying to the American people and using people for their twisted agenda.


More here:









23 responses to “Christine Blasey Ford dishonesty zero credibility bombshell not photos,  Elizabeth Loftus UC Irvine: “need independent evidence to corroborate your memories”, Bigger story: Democrats & Fake news media used her

  1. “Rachel Mitchell, a lawyer who was retained by the Senate GOP to question Ford, broke down her analysis of the testimony to Republicans, but did not advise them how to vote. She told them that as a prosecutor she would not charge Kavanaugh or even pursue a search warrant, according to a person briefed on the meeting.” -Politico

  2. Finally, we have Chris French from Goldsmiths, University of London, who has done decades of research on anomalous and paranormal memories, and believes that some of these may be the result of false memories.

    Chris French wants you to stop believing common memory myths.

    “My top 5 take-home messages on memory:

    1. Memory does not work like a video camera, accurately recording all of the details of witnessed events. Instead, memory (like perception) is a constructive process. We typically remember the gist of an event rather than the exact details.

    2. When we construct a memory, errors can occur. We will typically fill in gaps in our memories with what we think we must have experienced not necessarily what we actually did experience. We may also include misinformation we encountered after the event. We will not even be consciously aware that this has happened.

    3. We not only distort memories for events that we have witnessed, we may have completely false memories for events that never occurred at all. Such false memories are particularly likely to arise in certain contexts, such as (unintentionally) through the use of certain dubious psychotherapeutic techniques or (intentionally) in psychology experiments.

    4. There is no convincing evidence to support the existence of the psychoanalytic concept of repression, despite it being a widely accepted concept.

    5. There is currently no way to distinguish, in the absence of independent evidence, whether a particular memory is true or false. Even memories which are detailed and vivid and held with 100 percent conviction can be completely false.”

  3. This is probably why she is not licensed. She probably couldn’t get one.

  4. In the beginning of this we heard about Ford being drunk

    No memory because she was drunk

    What happened to that narrative?

    Why in heavens name did they not question Ford about her drinking on the day/night she claims this took place

    I still believe it is a case of drunken mistaken identity

  5. That is entirely possible.

  6. However, the experts state that her memories are fallible even if stone sober.

  7. From her testimony:
    “When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk.”

    MITCHELL: “Do you recall prior to getting there — so I’m — I’m only talking about up to the gathering — had you had anything to drink?”

    FORD: “Not at all.”

  8. This is why I knew we had been dealt a bad hand when they put a sex crimes prosecutor in charge of this instead of a sex crimes defense attorney.

    The private sector defense attorneys are almost always better lawyers. The best ones can earn more money there.
    And the best attorneys would have been prepared to question the witness on such basic facts as her credentials and how the ones she presented broke California law and perjured herself in this hearing.
    The best attorneys also would have done their basic homework on memory and the official line of the psychology trade on that subject. The best attorney would have shot down Ford’s testimony on memory and made Ford look like an idiot.

    Putting a sex crimes prosecutor from the public sector in charge of the questioning instead of a sex crimes defense attorney from the private sector was almost like it was rigged.

    How could a competent attorney let this witness get by with what she did on
    1 her credentials being a crime!
    2 her testimony on memory being the exact opposite of what the psychology industry says! ( and the witness is a supposed to be a psychology person)!

    Everything we run into is rigged in every single direction.

  9. Pingback: Christine Blasey Ford bombshell photo?, Panties topless surrounded by booze, Told best friend she had 64 sexual partners between 11th grade & college? | Citizen WElls

  10. CW
    Did anyone notice the phony eye glasses Christine was wearing at the hearing? I think she had an earwig hearing device on her left ear. The Secret Service uses an Invisible device of this kind. The micro-sized earbud is smaller than a hearing aid which fits snugly and securely in the ear canal.
    She could of been being feed her reply’s when not sure what to say. Would like to see a photo of Christine today and what glasses she is wearing.

  11. That was a video of Shelia Jackson Lee giving the male lawyer an envelope of something. They held it down and the lawyer put it in his jacket pocket Very interesting! Payoff maybe?

  12. OT, but breaking here in the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts:

    Dear Lord, please deliver us from this evil.

  13. SueK………
    ………….I just noticed a close facial resemblance of Pochahontas to Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Ford. Do you think that Pochahontas could be a distant relative of Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Ford? They both have the same vacant look on their faces.

  14. GW,

    Don’t think so, but you never know; all these moonbats are connected by mental illness; they’re all ‘brothahs’ and ‘sistahs’ in their warped minds.

  15. CAN ANYONE……..
    ……..mathematically calculate the likelihood of Pochahontas being elected to POTUS? What are the ODDS? For starters my GUESS is 1 chance in 330 million. I am not sure that she would even be elected as COMMUNITY DOG CATCHER……….after all many dogs are much smarter than the person trying to catch them.

  16. AND ONCE AGAIN…………

  17. I WONDER……….
    ………..if Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.” I DON’T KNOW” gets tingles up her leg like the ones that Chris Hardballs gets.

  18. Pingback: Dishonest Democrats control dishonest Fake News Media to prop up legitimize dishonest Christine Blasey Ford testimony & psycho babble, “exploited units of human capital” | Citizen WElls

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s