CO> VH> That would probably work -- at least to the point of opening people's
CO> VH> eyes as to how what they SAY and how it could be interpreted to a 
ury
CO> VH> are two entirely different things.
CO>True.  Painfully true.
CO> JT> VH> You might simply have someone simply burst into the room, fire a 
bl
CO> JT> VH> or two, run out
CO>Oddly enough, when I was in law school, we had that very thing happen.  
he
CO>object was to impress upon the students that "eye-witness" testimony was 
not
CO>always reliable.  It worked.  Out of 30 students, I believe we got 29 
differ
CO>statements as to what the "shooter" was wearing, his physical appearance, 
et
This is almost a classic exercise -- my suggestion was merely a
modification.  The exercise is used both in law schools and in
psychology -- to study perception and memory.  In some of the
applications, it produces very interesting results -- in fact, under the
appropriate conditions, you can INDUCE memories.  People who are
stressed and excited can be brought to believe things they were TOLD
actually happened.
For example, if you have a "stooge" say "Did you see that!!  The guy who
did the shooting was wearing cowboy boots," a large percentage of the
witnesses will say THEY saw the cowboy boots.
CO> VH> It would be interesting -- I've developed a lot of training on 
trange
CO> VH> subjects and skills in my time.
CO>Uhh, I'd kinda noticed that, Vern.
Anything odd or unwholesome, this is the number to call . . . :-)
CO> VH> I'd find developing a course like that interesting.
CO>Interesting is an understatement.  I think it would be fascinating.
Maybe what we ought to do is team up -- it might be salable.
Particularly if we could offer it through firearms training centers like
Gunsite or LFI.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.21/M 2
---------------