My wife remembers, clearly, the night she lost her maidenhood. It was at a party where people were smoking pot and drinking, yet she could probably recall the the month, date and year, if I asked.

If my wife can be entirely clear, on such a subject, why can't "Professor" Ford?

This entire situation is entirely too fishy to be accepted as fact by intelligent people.

No ideas are of value without objectivity (the word is not capitalized). You are not applying Ayn Rand's ideas to a real world situation. Your assertions of the summary of events is an invention, not "logic filling the holes" in "tidbits of data". You made up an account that you have repeatedly asserted as fact.

You have no idea what you are talking about, with all due respect.

the first day of the hearings, I did not really believe her, but I did feel sorry for her, and thought she was in need of a psychiatrist. But now, I thing she is a manipulative liberal bitch helping the Dem agenda.
Her grandpa (mother's side) was CIA Black Ops, She studied MK Ultra. She has done experiments with psychotropic drugs. She is an intern recruiter for the CIA at Stanford. Based on the regression present in both the badly writting letter, and her grade school voice at the hearings, she has been regressed, likely via hypnosis, wherre a planted fake memory could be placed. She might have been using psychotropics as well, as the CIA likes that in brainwashing. No, no more pitty party, she needs to be investigated thoroughly, and she and her cohorts need to put on some orane jumpsuits.

I think that she is just irrational. Just the way she talks and answers questions gives me that impression. A loud noise would send her into a screaming fit. She became a professor to be coddled and protected from the world- like most of them are with tenure.

That said, I think she made the claims without any specifics so as NOT to be discounted by some proof Kavanaugh would present that he couldnt have been a party to the event she claimed- because he had a valid alibi in another place at that time. Her answers were carefully crafted by her lawyer to be sufficiently ambiguous to protect her.

Plus, she didnt drive and someone had to take her home and she didnt say anything to whoever it was that she doesnt remember? BS

The whole thing is bogus, and invented by democrats to delay and eviscerate Kavanaugh. Its obvious, and the Repubs should accept this and simply confirm him.

I just thought of something. Should have hit me sooner considering all my years in medicine. Ford was drinking water, then coffee, then a cola...when you take certain medications, your mouth becomes very dry. Particularly psychotropic drugs.

Ford didn't remember this experience until 2012, during hypnosis therapy. These "recovered" memories are notoriously unreliable, and can sometimes be complete fantasies, which is why they aren't considered sufficient evidence in a court of law.

The most valid proof that even Ford herself knows she isn't really "100% sure" her attacker (if one existed) was Kavanaugh is the polygraph she took. The unnamed, unidentified polygraph examiner did not ask her anything about Kavanaugh, but only asked if she thought the written statement she had given him was true. The written statement itself does not mention Kavanaugh, but the Democrats point to the polygraph as proof her identification of the judge as her attacker is the truth. To me it's nothing more than a carefully staged hoax, rigged as much as possible to appear real.

She's not afraid of flying - that's a lie she/her lawyers used to try to stall the process. She applied for a position in Australia - which would have required her to fly.

I also call into question all of her other claims as well as being invented. Her psychologist (the one she talked to in 2012 when she was afraid Mitt Romney would propose Kavanaugh) won't release his notes about their exchanges back then but I would love to have been a fly on the wall...

I was an electronic engineer and designed control systems for industrial processes. I see the human brain as being much like the memory and logic circuits from those experiences. It is very easy to make a mistake due to the introduction of "noise" which gets stored and then produces unexpected results. I often think of some people that take the same facts and reach opposite conclusions as "not being wired right".

At home we just let it roll our eyes and let it go.

she also claimed to be a "psychologist" in California...there is no record of her being an official psychologist...that is a crime...
she is a professor at Palo Alto U.

one of the Regents at Palo Alto is Sen. Feinstein's husband...

her brother is a member of Fusion GPS...

she participated in a #MeToo march in California with a rubber vagina on her head...

need more...

This business of diverging memories is a fascinating subject! One can be so absolutely (or 100% as that stupid Ford woman attests) sure of something happening in JUST this way, only to discover through other objective means it wasn't that way at all!

The theory (from one specialist in the subject and I am sorry I can't remember (!) his name, but only that he was extraordinarily good-looking :-) ) is that memories are stored on a virtual "shelf" in your brain. When you recall the memory, you "check it out" of the shelf, and often, before you re-shelve it, it can be changed without your conscious control. At that point, you re-shelve it and it's a different memory altogether. Albeit, it has similarities to one degree or another of the original memory.

This Forbes article discusses memory storage, and the fifth theory it discusses is the one that I am referring to:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20...

I bet it gets interesting around your house when you and your wife get to comparing memories and they don't coincide!

My wife and I were high school sweethearts, dated through college and have been married for almost 56 years. Most of our lives have been spent together and most of our memories of events coincide. There are sometimes events that we both remember vividly and they are materially different. We both are sure that our versions are the truth. I would bet we could both pass a lie detector test on questions relating to these differing stories. How could we find the truth? None of these are big issues but illustrate divergent memories of an event, possibly even agreeing on what others were present. On a few occasions we have found a third party to corroborate one side or the other and even to provide a different account all together.


I have a hunch that Ford is bat-shit crazy but it is possible that the different stories are the result of 36 years storage in the memory. I have nothing positive to say about the Democrats that have the indecency to expose this sad person to the world in their attempt to derail the appointment of a judge whose crime is that he wants to protect the Constitution instead of rewriting it whenever it supports their agenda to do so.

What good are Ayn Rand's ideas if they can not be applied to real world situations which often have ambiguous data?
I stated Objective, not Objectivist.

Each of the two people are stating their Subjective truth via their memories and feelings. We as listeners may, if we choose to, try to make an Objective logical conclusion based on the tid-bits of inconclusive data. This includes their stated "data" of their subjective truths.
I find it implausible that either one of them is outright lying. Thus, an attempt to square the circle by using some logic to fill in the holes such that both of them could be truthfully stating their recollections.

No, "just plain crazy" is not "an Objectivist conclusion". She has emotional problems, but your summary isn't objective at all, let alone an "Objectivist conclusion". Please leave Ayn Rand out of what are your own opposing views and approach.

Worth 0...along with the leftist post modern nonsense in congress too...0 is what they should be paid.

Well we should seriously consider your comments. I can tell you gave the matter a lot of thought. When you list it the way you did, it does give one pause. I am frankly puzzled by this lady, She was 'the perfect victim'. Maybe too Perfect?

Me dino thought Mad Maxine Waters when I read the title of this post.
Listening to and looking at Dr. Ford, me dino could tell her elevator did not go all the way to the top.
Such can't be perceived by those who just plain hates Trump for supposedly usurping (besides Democrat power) the progressive throne from Her Majesty The Entitled One Of
The Glass Ceiling or are more specifically fans of Roe Vrs Wade and that Planned Parenthood assembly line for unborn baby butchery bandied about as a libtarded female health issue.