Your second paragraph reminds me of the following quotation:

"Memory never recaptures reality. Memory reconstructs. All reconstructions change the original, becoming external frames of reference that inevitably fall short."

- Mentat Handbook, in Heretics of Dune by Frank Herbert

loved your articles!

i'm an agnostic/atheist too :]

Anecdote: I remembered for decades that the crow in Disney's animated Sleeping Beauty flew through the puffs of pink and blue and himself turned colors. Imagine my amazement when I finally saw the thing on tape and that scene was not in it.

I think I know where that memory came from. I remember having a Disney storybook in my childhood that was illustrated with scenes and concept art from Sleeping Beauty, and it had the crow being turned pink and blue. When trying to reach back so many years for memories of seeing the movie, it's really easy to get memories of that companion book mixed in with it. I think this is a good example of Ebon's original premise.

The other jurors were very quick to convict on a lesser theft charge than the prosecution wanted, but I balked at this. I argued that the jury instructions defining theft gave us six necessary conditions for an action to count as theft, and that if we had reasonable doubts about any of these conditions, we should aquit. Other jurors balked, but one juror who was a lawyer propped me up. I actually wanted to convict on that lesser theft charge myself, but I didn't want to convict unless each of the other jurors was able to overcome my counter arguments.

Two things I learned from this trial:

1. If you're the victim of a crime, file a report as soon as possible. Get pictures, take badge numbers. A jury will not believe you if you dawdle.

2. If you think you will be accused of a crime; DO NOT COOPERATE WITH AUTHORITIES. SAY NOTHING. DO NOT CONSENT TO BEING TAPED. GET REPRESENTATION AND SAY NOTHING. DO NOT COUNT ON YOUR SMARTS OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW TO SAVE YOU. Defendant in my case was a judge talked on tape with two detectives and screwed herself.

Who was it said that "Eyewitnesses may lie or be mistaken, but circumstantial evidence does neither"? Of course, it can be misinterpreted. Nothing's perfect.

But Ebon's right in that we tend to place a lot of credence in our memories. Anecdote: I remembered for decades that the crow in Disney's animated Sleeping Beauty flew through the puffs of pink and blue and himself turned colors. Imagine my amazement when I finally saw the thing on tape and that scene was not in it.

Several RCMP officers gave evidence about how Robert Dziekanski was subdued with a Taser and subsequently died at Vancouver Airport. Their evidence was reasonable and consistent with each other. Except that it was all contradicted by an amateur video that the officers were not aware of until after they had given their depositions.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Broken+RCMP+needs+overhaul/1439030/story.html

The video contradicts all four officers' earlier statements and clearly shows Dziekanski did not need to be Tasered five times to be brought under control.He was being Tasered even while already on the floor, moaning in pain. He was no threat to anyone, never mind to the four healthy RCMP officers who carried guns and wore body armour.

Without the video their eye-witness account would have prevailed.

I KNOW irrefutably that I went to a certain high school, a certain college and a certain medical school no matter how far removed in time or how many times I reconstruct those facts.

The key difference between knowing what school you went to, and remembering an event, is that you didn't just go to any of those schools just once. You went to each of them several hundred times at least. If you were to directly experience an event hundreds of times, the memory would likely last a lifetime, and remain accurate in that time.