|
|
 December 23, 2010, 07:39:21 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1899
|
From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza: Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination by Andrew M. Mason As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginConclusions about the shot pattern As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why a large majority of the ear-witnesses stated the last two shots were closely spaced. This is a direct contradiction to the supposed 5 seconds between the last two shots according to the SBT.
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
December 23, 2010, 08:18:42 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 110
|
Welcome to the forum.
-------------------------
-------------------------
What the heck do I know? I'm just a dude on the internet. Maybe you are, too.
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 23, 2010, 09:48:12 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 858
|
From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza: Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination by Andrew M. Mason As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginConclusions about the shot pattern As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why a large majority of the ear-witnesses stated the last two shots were closely spaced. This is a direct contradiction to the supposed 5 seconds between the last two shots according to the SBT. Andrew Mason. I remember he tried to correlate the positions of the people in the limousine using off-plane lines and the like. I think he had a theory that the throat shot exiting Kennedy went immediately to Connally's leg. I tried to explain to him that it would mean Connally's thigh was in the front seat. Paul, how can people "measure" the spans of the shots when the first one is so unexpected (many described it as a firecracker or backfire; only a few immediately recognized it as gunfire). For most, any timing mechanism and concentration on shot spanning would kick in beginning with the second shot ("That's gunfire! I'm gonna pay attention." or "That's gunfire. Time to stop talking to my wife."). This led to the false impression that the second two shots were closer together. You often hear the expression (paraphrasing) "the first shot was followed by two more in quick succession." Think about that, Paul. How can the "first shot" follow the last two? Only the last two can follow the first. And there's really nothing about shot spanning in the phrase "the first shot was followed by two more in quick succession." I went through As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login three weeks ago. Don't be a:  Jerry
-------------------------
-------------------------
 "It's, uh, very heavy." — President Johnson on receiving the Warren Report in the Oval Office, Sept. 24, 1964
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
December 23, 2010, 10:03:01 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 5248
|
From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza: Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination by Andrew M. Mason As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginConclusions about the shot pattern As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why a large majority of the ear-witnesses stated the last two shots were closely spaced. This is a direct contradiction to the supposed 5 seconds between the last two shots according to the SBT. Andrew Mason. I remember he tried to correlate the positions of the people in the limousine using off-plane lines and the like. I think he had a theory that the throat shot exiting Kennedy went immediately to Connally's leg. I tried to explain to him that it would mean Connally's thigh was in the front seat. Paul, how can people "measure" the spans of the shots when the first one is so unexpected (many described it as a firecracker or backfire; only a few immediately recognized it as gunfire). For most, any timing mechanism and concentration on shot spanning would kick in beginning with the second shot ("That's gunfire! I'm gonna pay attention." or "That's gunfire. Time to stop talking to my wife."). This led to the false impression that the second two shots were closer together. You often hear the expression (paraphrasing) "the first shot was followed by two more in quick succession." Think about that, Paul. How can the "first shot" follow the last two? Only the last two can follow the first. And there's really nothing about shot spanning in the phrase "the first shot was followed by two more in quick succession." I went through As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login three weeks ago. Don't be a: Jerry Jerry More shots than you can handle? ,What about the last one hitting whilst JFK and JBC are laying between the seats have a look at 343 onwards and remember what Brehm said about the head shot being the second and Altgens taking his picture at the exact same time as the head shot his testimony is shaky to say the least and of course Brehm was never called to testify because "brian" said that they probably had enough witnesses and did not need the eye witness testimony of the 3 closest people Brehm, DCM and Umbrella man how fortunate for them. Ian “It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious.”
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 10:31:48 PM by Ian Kingsbury »
|
-------------------------
Some things we know we know,the rest we have to find out for ourselves
One of the first things we found out was that the Warren Commission never pursued a conspiracy investigation.
Louis Stokes
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
December 23, 2010, 10:20:09 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza: Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination by Andrew M. Mason As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginConclusions about the shot pattern As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why a large majority of the ear-witnesses stated the last two shots were closely spaced. This is a direct contradiction to the supposed 5 seconds between the last two shots according to the SBT. > If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness > recalling a simple pattern of three loud noises > correctly was at least as great the likelihood > of recalling it incorrectly, ... But that is precisely the assumption we cannot make. There may be systematic errors, witnesses making the same mistake for the same reason. It could be that time appears distorted when one is suddenly afraid. In the first interval, they may be thinking "That's just a car backfire" but in the second interval "The President is acting strange. Was he just wounded?". Stress does distort time perception. To a rookie in the NFL, the game will suddenly seem much faster. Partly, it is faster, the players really can run faster than in college. But partly, it's nerves. As they calm down, the game slows down, possible enough for them to make some plays. Another factor is that rifles don't go bang but to many observers go "Crack-Thump". The "Crack" is the sound of the supersonic bullet. The "Thump" is the muzzle blast traveling at the speed of sound. The "Crack-Thump" separation in time is greatest for the third shot and for at least some witnesses, near the limousine, the 0.12 second delay between the two sounds may be great enough to distinguish as two separate sounds and mistaken for two separate shots. ******************** If witness errors were truly independent events, then we could use statistical methods. It Witness A: mistakenly thought the second interval was shorter because he wore a red sock on the right foot and a blue on the left, which causes him to make that error. If he had the socks reversed, he would have made the opposite error. If Witness B: mistakenly thought the second interval was shorter because he just celebrated his birthday with drinking and that always causes that type of error. Etc. All reasons for the witness errors were independent events, they cannot be related to each other, then we could use statistics. ******************** We can use statistical studies in cases where the events are truly independent. A bunch of rolls with a die that come up "six" 40% of the time does indicate something is wrong with the die because what happened on one roll won't effect another. But with witnesses, the same thing which caused one witness to make a mistake could be exactly the same thing that caused another witness to make the same mistake. The errors could be not random, independent events but systematic errors. Eye witness testimony is unreliable and it cannot be redeemed with statistical methods.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
December 23, 2010, 10:34:13 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 5248
|
From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza: Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination by Andrew M. Mason As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginConclusions about the shot pattern As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why a large majority of the ear-witnesses stated the last two shots were closely spaced. This is a direct contradiction to the supposed 5 seconds between the last two shots according to the SBT. > If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness > recalling a simple pattern of three loud noises > correctly was at least as great the likelihood > of recalling it incorrectly, ... But that is precisely the assumption we cannot make. There may be systematic errors, witnesses making the same mistake for the same reason. It could be that time appears distorted when one is suddenly afraid. In the first interval, they may be thinking "That's just a car backfire" but in the second interval "The President is acting strange. Was he just wounded?". Stress does distort time perception. To a rookie in the NFL, the game will suddenly seem much faster. Partly, it is faster, the players really can run faster than in college. But partly, it's nerves. As they calm down, the game slows down, possible enough for them to make some plays. Another factor is that rifles don't go bang but to many observers go "Crack-Thump". The "Crack" is the sound of the supersonic bullet. The "Thump" is the muzzle blast traveling at the speed of sound. The "Crack-Thump" separation in time is greatest for the third shot and for at least some witnesses, near the limousine, the 0.12 second delay between the two sounds may be great enough to distinguish as two separate sounds and mistaken for two separate shots. ******************** If witness errors were truly independent events, then we could use statistical methods. It Witness A: mistakenly thought the second interval was shorter because he wore a red sock on the right foot and a blue on the left, which causes him to make that error. If he had the socks reversed, he would have made the opposite error. If Witness B: mistakenly thought the second interval was shorter because he just celebrated his birthday with drinking and that always causes that type of error. Etc. All reasons for the witness errors were independent events, they cannot be related to each other, then we could use statistics. ******************** We can use statistical studies in cases where the events are truly independent. A bunch of rolls with a die that come up "six" 40% of the time does indicate something is wrong with the die because what happened on one roll won't effect another. But with witnesses, the same thing which caused one witness to make a mistake could be exactly the same thing that caused another witness to make the same mistake. The errors could be not random, independent events but systematic errors. Eye witness testimony is unreliable and it cannot be redeemed with statistical methods. Yeah but did you actually say that or are you imagining saying that and I heard you?.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 23, 2010, 11:14:40 PM
|
Group: Administrator
Super Member
Posts: 2094
|
<![CDATA[As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
<a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=register">Register</a> or <a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=login">Login</a>]]>
-------------------------
-------------------------
An opinion based on something other than fact, is an opinion based on ignorance. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 23, 2010, 11:42:19 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 858
|
Thanks for the clip Duncan. But on what we have regarding those ear-witnesses who offered their version of the shot pattern, and those very few who were asked, it is clear that a large majority declared that the spacing between the last two shots was significantly shorter than the first and second shots.
Paul appears to be one of those conspiracy theorists who are beyond persuasion, Duncan. Cheers for the holidays. Jerry
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
