Unfortunately, even with an eyewitness who is being as honest as he can in his recollection of an event, it has been shown that eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable.
There is an interesting article here, among many to be found on the web:
Eyewitness Testimony and Memory: Human Memory is Unreliable and so is Eyewitness Testimony
I quote a short passage from the article.
''Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred. It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.
Prosecutors recognize that eyewitness testimony, even when given in all honesty and sincerity, isn’t necessarily credible. Merely because a person claims to have seen something does not mean that what they remember seeing really happened — one reason why is that not all eyewitnesses are the same. To simply be a competent witness (competent, which is not the same as credible), a person must have adequate powers of perception, must be able to remember and report well, and must be able and willing to tell the truth.
Thus, such testimony can be critiqued on several grounds: having impaired perception, having impaired memory, having inconsistent testimony, having bias or prejudice, and not having a reputation for telling the truth. If any of those characteristics can be demonstrated, then the competency of the witness is questionable. However, even if none of them apply, that does not automatically mean that the testimony is credible. The fact of the matter is, eyewitness testimony from competent and sincere people has put innocent people in jail.
How can eyewitness testimony become inaccurate? Many factors can come into play: age, health, personal bias and expectations, viewing conditions, perception problems, later discussions with other witnesses, stress, etc.''
Is there a better explanation for the apparent change in speed of the Chinook? If so I would be very glad to hear it and give it due consideration. I do get a feeling that on this thread it is easy to wander into the full half hour of argument rather than five minutes, to quote Monty Python. To further quote:
''An argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying anything the other person says.''
''Oh no it isn't''