|
|
 September 05, 2011, 04:55:10 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
Witness Data and the Perils of Majority RuleMajority Rule is good for determining our government. Bad for determining if Evolution is true or false. Bad for determining the shot pattern at Dealey Plaza. Witnesses are heavily influenced by what they think is going on. If they hear a loud sound, what will they think it is? If attending a large Fourth of July picnic, a firecracker. If watching a motorcycle race, a backfire. If invading Omaha Beach on D-Day, a gunshot. The same sound will be interpreted differently depending on what the witness thinks is happening. What we perceive is influenced by what we believe. Look at the following picture:  Tell a group they are about to see a picture of a young woman and most will see a young woman. Tell them they are about to see an old woman and they will see an old woman. How people interpret their senses is heavily influenced by what they believe is going on. ********** Much is made of the witnesses hearing two shots right together at the end. But what does this mean? Some witnesses reported that with the first shot or two, they thought it was just backfires or firecrackers. But it appears that even the people who report only hearing gunshots, must have thought at the time they were hearing something else. This is evident in the Zapruder film. Up until z312, most everyone is acting normally, clapping their hands and just looking at the motorcade. The only people who seem to be reacting like shots are being fired are the people in the limousine, the four standing Secret Service agents in the follow up car, Howard Brennan and possibly Rosemary Willis. Clearly most people thought the first two shots were not gunshots. Why is that? Because they didn't sound like rifle shots but instead sounded like backfires or firecrackers? No. It was because people were not expecting to hear gunshots. They thought they were watching an ordinary motorcade. When they heard a gunshot, most of them dismissed it as a backfire or a firecracker and continued concentrating on their only one close up view of a President and the First Lady they expect to get in their lives. In the chaos that followed, some even forgot about the 'backfire' they heard earlier. Before z312, there was a strong bias to interpret a loud noise as not being a rifle shot. This is pretty much undeniable. But as the Zapruder film shows, after z312, based on what they saw, the head exploding, everyone who saw that, knew that gunshots had been fired. Mr. Altgens froze and did not immediately take another picture as he was planning to. Others dived to the ground. No one saw JFK's head explode and thought nothing out of the ordinary was happening. Did this change the way people perceive things? Did this cause people to interpret any loud sound as a gunshot? This is certainly plausible.None of the three shots only produced one sound, a sharp bang. All produced multiple sounds. But it was the z312 shot that produced the most sounds and sounds that were most distinct from the others. * the separation of the 'Crack-Thump' was greatest with this shot for witnesses near the limousine, up to about an eighth of a second * more people were near the bullet as it passed overhead for the z312 shot. For example, Charles Brehm had this bullet pass overhead while neither the z153 nor the z222 bullet passed over his head * there was the loud sound of the bullet striking JFK's skull * there was the loud sound of a bullet fragment striking and denting the chrome windshield frame * there was the loud sound of a bullet fragment cracking the windshield. The fragment that dented the chrome frame must have made a loud noise, audible to everyone in Dealey Plaza. Imagine how loud a noise you would have to make with one blow of a heavy hammer to make a dent in a chrome frame. A metal fragment, slamming into the chrome at 700 MPH, hard enough to even put a dent into it, is going to make some noise.Below shows two pictures. The bottom picture shows CE349, the dent in the windshield frame: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginIt was at z312, when JFK's head exploded, that people realized that shots were being fired. They were no longer inclined to interpret loud noises as backfires, or firecrackers or fragments striking the limousine. They were inclined to interpret loud noises as gunfire. Before z312, people tended to interpret a loud noise as a backfire or a firecracker. They were disinclined to interpret it as a gunshot. After z312, the opposite was probably true. A loud 'Bang' or 'Crack' was likely to be interpreted as a gunshot.What people think is going on can cause all kinds of distortions. How they interpret sounds. How they perceive the passage of time. Time might seem to pass more quickly, or more slowly, between z153 through z222 than z222 through z312, depending on whether they think this is a normal motorcade or a growing realization is starting to build that something out of the ordinary may be happening. Making it perilous to rely on 'Majority Rule' to determine what actually happened. That the gap between the first and second shot must have been greater than the gap between the second and the third. People will be influenced by what they think is going on. That is why so many heard the first two rifle shots as backfires or firecrackers.************************************************** Many witnesses report the shots being well spaced out, with at least two seconds between each shot. But many report the last two shots as being very close together. Clearly, one of two things happened: Possibility 1: There were two shots close together. Some were able to correctly distinguish the two shots. Others were not. Possibility 2: There was only one shot at the end but it produced multiple sounds, causing some witnesses to mistakenly believe that two shots occurred almost together. If Possibility 1 is true, it was quite a coincidence that two shots happened so close together. So close, that many witnesses heard them as one shot. Without strong evidence to the contrary, one should reject coincidences. Possibility 2 requires no coincidence. There were no two shots that just happened to fired together. Just one shot that produced multiple noises that some witnesses interpreted as multiple shots. ************************************************** What are the logical absurdities we get into if we use 'Majority Rules'?If we go with 'Majority Rules' and use the Zapruder film, we could have to conclude that no shots were fired before z312. While JFK and Connally may act like they are wounded and may even believe they are wounded, clearly the vast majority of the people watching the motorcade do not think that shots have been fired. Therefore, up until z312, no shots have been fired. A strong preponderance of the witnesses, way over 75%, clearly do not think shots have been fired and having so many witnesses being wrong is just plain unthinkable.If we go with 'Majority Rules' we should be logically consistent. 75% thought the last two shots were close together. Many of them very close. So we should believe there were two shots right around z312. But we should also believe there were no shots before z312 because clearly the vast majority of the witnesses show no reaction to any shots before then.
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2011, 03:54:22 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1900
|
I am suggesting that 75% of the witnesses can be mistaken. Clearly well over 75% of the witnesses were mistaken about what the two loud noises they heard were at z153 and z222. What is so fantastic about a large number being mistaken about the 'Bang' they heard when the fragment smashed into and dented the chrome windshield frame.
There is probably no simple story on what error the witnesses made. Different witnesses made different errors. Some dismissed the early shots as being backfires and in the ensuing chaos, forgot about them. Others may have mistaken the sound of the fragment striking chrome, or the bullet striking the skull, or the crack of the supersonic bullet, as the sound of a different gunshot. For others, time may get distorted as they begin to suspect something is not quite right. Other witnesses may incorporate what they heard from others or the media into what they remember. The number of ways witnesses made mistakes is equal to the number of witnesses.
We know this to be true because of the wild disagreement between what different witnesses remember.
Two witnesses may remember there being three shots, with the last two closer together. But the first may remember at least a two second separation between each shot while the other remembers the last two shots were right on top of each other.
Two witnesses may remember three shots with the last two right on top of each other. But the first may remember all the shots coming from the Grassy Knoll while the second remembers all the shots from the TSBD.
Witnesses make all sorts of errors and on some issues the majority can be mistaken. Like whether the first two shots were really shots. Had Oswald never fired the third shot, most witnesses never would have realized that shots had been fired until they heard about it from the media.
Had Oswald never fired the third shot, most witnesses never would have realized that shots had been fired until they heard about it from the media.Interesting Joe. So now are you saying that they didn't know they heard shots till they heard the last shot. But whatever noises they heard must have been shots and if not shots then where did all the shots go?. How many did they hear again Joe? 1, 2, 3? I am struggling with this. I really am.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2011, 05:29:13 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
Had Oswald never fired the third shot, most witnesses never would have realized that shots had been fired until they heard about it from the media.
Interesting Joe. So now are you saying that they didn't know they heard shots till they heard the last shot. But whatever noises they heard must have been shots and if not shots then where did all the shots go?. How many did they hear again Joe? 1, 2, 3? I am struggling with this. I really am. Actually, they didn't realize they heard shots until they saw the last shot, not heard it. When JFK's head exploded, they realized shots were fired, stopped clapping and dove to the ground. Not before. And, no, whatever noises they heard was not necessarily separate shots. Some would have heard the 'Crack' of a supersonic bullet. All would have heard the 'Bang' of the chrome windshield frame being dented. How many shots did they hear? Don't ask the witnesses. They were struggling with this as much as you.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2011, 05:32:36 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 5253
|
Witness Data and the Perils of Majority RuleMajority Rule is good for determining our government. Bad for determining if Evolution is true or false. Bad for determining the shot pattern at Dealey Plaza. Witnesses are heavily influenced by what they think is going on. If they hear a loud sound, what will they think it is? If attending a large Fourth of July picnic, a firecracker. If watching a motorcycle race, a backfire. If invading Omaha Beach on D-Day, a gunshot. The same sound will be interpreted differently depending on what the witness thinks is happening. What we perceive is influenced by what we believe. Look at the following picture: Tell a group they are about to see a picture of a young woman and most will see a young woman. Tell them they are about to see an old woman and they will see an old woman. How people interpret their senses is heavily influenced by what they believe is going on. ********** Much is made of the witnesses hearing two shots right together at the end. But what does this mean? Some witnesses reported that with the first shot or two, they thought it was just backfires or firecrackers. But it appears that even the people who report only hearing gunshots, must have thought at the time they were hearing something else. This is evident in the Zapruder film. Up until z312, most everyone is acting normally, clapping their hands and just looking at the motorcade. The only people who seem to be reacting like shots are being fired are the people in the limousine, the four standing Secret Service agents in the follow up car, Howard Brennan and possibly Rosemary Willis. Clearly most people thought the first two shots were not gunshots. Why is that? Because they didn't sound like rifle shots but instead sounded like backfires or firecrackers? No. It was because people were not expecting to hear gunshots. They thought they were watching an ordinary motorcade. When they heard a gunshot, most of them dismissed it as a backfire or a firecracker and continued concentrating on their only one close up view of a President and the First Lady they expect to get in their lives. In the chaos that followed, some even forgot about the 'backfire' they heard earlier. Before z312, there was a strong bias to interpret a loud noise as not being a rifle shot. This is pretty much undeniable. But as the Zapruder film shows, after z312, based on what they saw, the head exploding, everyone who saw that, knew that gunshots had been fired. Mr. Altgens froze and did not immediately take another picture as he was planning to. Others dived to the ground. No one saw JFK's head explode and thought nothing out of the ordinary was happening. Did this change the way people perceive things? Did this cause people to interpret any loud sound as a gunshot? This is certainly plausible.None of the three shots only produced one sound, a sharp bang. All produced multiple sounds. But it was the z312 shot that produced the most sounds and sounds that were most distinct from the others. * the separation of the 'Crack-Thump' was greatest with this shot for witnesses near the limousine, up to about an eighth of a second * more people were near the bullet as it passed overhead for the z312 shot. For example, Charles Brehm had this bullet pass overhead while neither the z153 nor the z222 bullet passed over his head * there was the loud sound of the bullet striking JFK's skull * there was the loud sound of a bullet fragment striking and denting the chrome windshield frame * there was the loud sound of a bullet fragment cracking the windshield. The fragment that dented the chrome frame must have made a loud noise, audible to everyone in Dealey Plaza. Imagine how loud a noise you would have to make with one blow of a heavy hammer to make a dent in a chrome frame. A metal fragment, slamming into the chrome at 700 MPH, hard enough to even put a dent into it, is going to make some noise.Below shows two pictures. The bottom picture shows CE349, the dent in the windshield frame: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginIt was at z312, when JFK's head exploded, that people realized that shots were being fired. They were no longer inclined to interpret loud noises as backfires, or firecrackers or fragments striking the limousine. They were inclined to interpret loud noises as gunfire. Before z312, people tended to interpret a loud noise as a backfire or a firecracker. They were disinclined to interpret it as a gunshot. After z312, the opposite was probably true. A loud 'Bang' or 'Crack' was likely to be interpreted as a gunshot.What people think is going on can cause all kinds of distortions. How they interpret sounds. How they perceive the passage of time. Time might seem to pass more quickly, or more slowly, between z153 through z222 than z222 through z312, depending on whether they think this is a normal motorcade or a growing realization is starting to build that something out of the ordinary may be happening. Making it perilous to rely on 'Majority Rule' to determine what actually happened. That the gap between the first and second shot must have been greater than the gap between the second and the third. People will be influenced by what they think is going on. That is why so many heard the first two rifle shots as backfires or firecrackers.************************************************** Many witnesses report the shots being well spaced out, with at least two seconds between each shot. But many report the last two shots as being very close together. Clearly, one of two things happened: Possibility 1: There were two shots close together. Some were able to correctly distinguish the two shots. Others were not. Possibility 2: There was only one shot at the end but it produced multiple sounds, causing some witnesses to mistakenly believe that two shots occurred almost together. If Possibility 1 is true, it was quite a coincidence that two shots happened so close together. So close, that many witnesses heard them as one shot. Without strong evidence to the contrary, one should reject coincidences. Possibility 2 requires no coincidence. There were no two shots that just happened to fired together. Just one shot that produced multiple noises that some witnesses interpreted as multiple shots. ************************************************** What are the logical absurdities we get into if we use 'Majority Rules'?If we go with 'Majority Rules' and use the Zapruder film, we could have to conclude that no shots were fired before z312. While JFK and Connally may act like they are wounded and may even believe they are wounded, clearly the vast majority of the people watching the motorcade do not think that shots have been fired. Therefore, up until z312, no shots have been fired. A strong preponderance of the witnesses, way over 75%, clearly do not think shots have been fired and having so many witnesses being wrong is just plain unthinkable.If we go with 'Majority Rules' we should be logically consistent. 75% thought the last two shots were close together. Many of them very close. So we should believe there were two shots right around z312. But we should also believe there were no shots before z312 because clearly the vast majority of the witnesses show no reaction to any shots before then. Mesmerising Joe DVP could not have said it better .Now put the watch down.
-------------------------
-------------------------
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 |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2011, 08:15:18 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1900
|
Interesting Joe. So now are you saying that they didn't know they heard shots till they heard the last shot. But whatever noises they heard must have been shots and if not shots then where did all the shots go?. How many did they hear again Joe? 1, 2, 3? I am struggling with this. I really am.
Actually, they didn't realize they heard shots until they saw the last shot, not heard it. When JFK's head exploded, they realized shots were fired, stopped clapping and dove to the ground. Not before.
And, no, whatever noises they heard was not necessarily separate shots. Some would have heard the 'Crack' of a supersonic bullet. All would have heard the 'Bang' of the chrome windshield frame being dented.
How many shots did they hear? Don't ask the witnesses. They were struggling with this as much as you.
This is universal Joe. This breakthrough of yours could change the dynamics of LN's vs CT's as we know it. Never mind my struggles. They are petty in the grand scheme of things. I don't really know at this stage. Haven't quite got my head around it. That so many witnesses that agree on 3 shots could be so wrong with what they heard deems this kind of survey invalid let alone unreliable. From Paul May, May 19, 2011 on this forum. The shots As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginMultiple investigations of the number of shots heard by witnesses on 11/22 have been conducted.
If indeed a 4th shot was fired that day why did only 6 witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8 witnesses according to another, where as the vast majority of witnesses (136 in one study, 132 in another and 144 in a third) heard only 3 shots? With ratios like 136, 132, 144 to 6, 6 and 8 respectively whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any doubt? Of course there can.........in the zany world of conspiracy theory! rofl3Do you want to tell Paul he shouldn't endorse such nonsense or should I do it? I am sure over 99% of LN's would still endorse it but I figure if you can convince Paul you could convince any LN. I love reading Paul's stuff I genuinely do and I've even supported some of his notions. but I've got to be honest. He is the only LN I am scared of. Even if I were a LN I'd be sacred of him.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2011, 09:07:24 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
This is universal Joe. This breakthrough of yours could change the dynamics of LN's vs CT's as we know it. Never mind my struggles. They are petty in the grand scheme of things. I don't really know at this stage. Haven't quite got my head around it. That so many witnesses that agree on 3 shots could be so wrong with what they heard deems this kind of survey invalid let alone unreliable. From Paul May, May 19, 2011 on this forum. The shots As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginMultiple investigations of the number of shots heard by witnesses on 11/22 have been conducted.
If indeed a 4th shot was fired that day why did only 6 witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8 witnesses according to another, where as the vast majority of witnesses (136 in one study, 132 in another and 144 in a third) heard only 3 shots? With ratios like 136, 132, 144 to 6, 6 and 8 respectively whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any doubt? Of course there can.........in the zany world of conspiracy theory! rofl3Do you want to tell Paul he shouldn't endorse such nonsense or should I do it? I am sure over 99% of LN's would still endorse it but I figure if you can convince Paul you could convince any LN. I love reading Paul's stuff I genuinely do and I've even supported some of his notions. but I've got to be honest. He is the only LN I am scared of. Even if I were a LN I'd be sacred of him. Witness testimony is unreliable. If the majority get some detail right, like the number of shots, there may be some luck to it. If the majority can always be relied upon to perceive correctly what is going on, we should see a lot more reaction from the people in the Zapruder film. Instead, they clap, take pictures, and carry on to all appearances to not realize shots are being fired until z312.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2011, 10:07:50 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1900
|
Witness testimony is unreliable. If the majority get some detail right, like the number of shots, there may be some luck to it.
If the majority can always be relied upon to perceive correctly what is going on, we should see a lot more reaction from the people in the Zapruder film. Instead, they clap, take pictures, and carry on to all appearances to not realize shots are being fired until z312.
So I take it you don't endorse Paul May's endorsement of the survey? I do. Apparently (like Paul I am assuming) I have more faith in witnesses distinguishing 3 rifle shots that day than you seem to do. I imagine a great deal of LN's would feel the same way. Be careful Joe. You may be considered kooky before you know it. At least you have Mike & Mike for company on that one.  I might start a poll amongst LN's just to see where they are at with this theory of yours. Put it on the record for the next time a LN brings it up in discussion. You are totally rad for a LN Joe.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 06, 2011, 02:05:28 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
So I take it you don't endorse Paul May's endorsement of the survey? I do. Apparently (like Paul I am assuming) I have more faith in witnesses distinguishing 3 rifle shots that day than you seem to do. I imagine a great deal of LN's would feel the same way. Be careful Joe. You may be considered kooky before you know it. At least you have Mike & Mike for company on that one. I might start a poll amongst LN's just to see where they are at with this theory of yours. Put it on the record for the next time a LN brings it up in discussion. You are totally rad for a LN Joe. Now here is an interesting thing. Of those claiming 3 shots, there is a number who have them coming from two locations, contrary to the physical evidence. So in effect, they got the shots right, and the placement wrong. If this is the case, how did they manage that? Were they in fact hearing axillary sounds?
-------------------------
-------------------------
Marsh can not even comprehend a simple time stamp. How will he ever comprehend the evidence?
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 06, 2012, 05:02:22 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 534
|
Witness testimony is unreliable. If the majority get some detail right, like the number of shots, there may be some luck to it. It is irrational to say it must be luck. Something was causing those witnesses to recall 3 shots and the shot pattern 1.....2..3. So many witnesses recalled it. Many more simply stated that they heard a shot and then heard two more shots. The distribution of witnesses recalling the shot pattern was: 1...2.......3 -> 6 witnesses 1.....2.....3 -> 9 witnesses 1.......2...3 -> 45 witnesses at least What you are saying, without any evidence to support it, is that witnesses hearing 1...2.......3 have a 75% chance of not only recalling it incorrectly, but in recalling incorrectly in the same way. That is simply not a rational conclusion. But you don't have to accept the statistical argument. You can see if other evidence fits. You may note that the 1........2...3 shot pattern does not permit 5 seconds between the second and third shots, since that would require about 15 seconds for the whole sequence. Besides the witnesses said the last two were very rapid. So JFK must have been hit by the first shot. So what do the witnesses say? They say that JFK was hit by the first shot - at least 20 of witnesses: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAnd if the shot pattern was 1......2..3 then the second shot would have to be after the midpoint between 1 and 3 - enough after to be widely noticed: and there is evidence. The Newmans said fell back on the second shot - right in front of them. He falls back at about z280. Greer said he turned around immediately on hearing the second shot. He turns at z278-280. If the shot pattern was 1.....2...3, then someone who did something around z255 like Nellie looking at JFK or Altgens taking a picture, would say that they did this after the first shot and before the next shot. And that is exactly what they did say. So not only do you have no evidence that witnesses can possibly be mistaken like that, you have real evidence that they were not mistaken. If the majority can always be relied upon to perceive correctly what is going on, we should see a lot more reaction from the people in the Zapruder film. Instead, they clap, take pictures, and carry on to all appearances to not realize shots are being fired until z312.
Recalling the pattern of the sounds has nothing to do with whether they recognized them as shots. Why would someone have to recognize it as a rifle shot in order to say that they heard a loud noise? I think you have to use common sense here. They all heard the noises. Few recognized them as rifle shots. Few who heard the shot pattern 1......2..3 were in a position to hear impact noises or the shock wave.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 05:06:57 AM by Andrew Mason »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 06, 2012, 08:11:40 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
Witness testimony is unreliable. If the majority get some detail right, like the number of shots, there may be some luck to it.
It is irrational to say it must be luck. No, there may be luck involved. The largest category of people said the Presidential limousine stopped. The second largest said it stopped or almost stopped. The witnesses got this detail wrong. The limousine only slowed from 12 MPH to 8 MPH. The best guess is the witnesses were influenced by the vehicles closest to them, most of which did stop. But they could have gotten lucky. JFK's limousine could have stopped. In which case most would have reported accurately, not because they made good observations, but because the vehicles closest to them happened to stop as well. It is possible for witnesses to make poor observations, but get lucky and make the right report. In the case of the "3 shots", the initial reports over the radio was that there were 3 shots. Many of the witnesses may have heard this report, over portable radios, and that may have influenced them. In the minutes after the assassination, people were trying to find out what happened, gathered around radios, comparing notes with other witnesses about what happened. If the "3 shots" report is accurate, as I believe it is, the reason might have been luck, not the witnesses making a reliable count. They may have been influenced by an initial report that spread quickly, that happened to be right.
Something was causing those witnesses to recall 3 shots and the shot pattern 1.....2..3. So many witnesses recalled it. Many more simply stated that they heard a shot and then heard two more shots.
The distribution of witnesses recalling the shot pattern was:
1...2.......3 -> 6 witnesses
1.....2.....3 -> 9 witnesses
1.......2...3 -> 45 witnesses at least
And the bulk of the witnesses reported the limousine stopped or almost stopped.
What you are saying, without any evidence to support it, is that witnesses hearing 1...2.......3 have a 75% chance of not only recalling it incorrectly, but in recalling incorrectly in the same way. That is simply not a rational conclusion.
But you don't have to accept the statistical argument.
No, I am making rational arguments. I've looked over some of the articles you have made. You are intelligent. But I suspect you never did take a course on statistics. I'm not an expert on statistics but I did take a course on it. You cannot use statistics in any old fashion. You can't gather statistics on the rate that people die in American, make a count of the people living in a building, and make a good prediction on how many people in the building will die this year. The answer may depend on what kind of building is it, a regular apartment building or a convalescent hospital. You say I reject statistic arguments on the witnesses. This is true. Here is Statistics, 101. Statistics can be reliably used on a large number of events, but only if the events are all independent.Let's take the "Speed of the limousine" example. If: * each witness is as likely to overestimate the speed as to underestimate the speed, * the reason for any witness making an error is totally unrelated to the reasons a different witness made an error, then these "events", the account given by each witness, are independent events. So we can use statistics to tell us what happened. If more than half the witnesses said the limousine stopped, and over three quarters said it almost stopped, we can reliably conclude the limousine stopped, or lost almost all it's speed. The problem is we know that the limousine did not stop, nor did it almost stopped. Clearly, the problem is that the witnesses made errors that were not independent of each other. They must have made errors for the same reason. Likely, they made the same error because most witnesses were closest to the vehicles that did stop and that influenced them. The witness accounts were not independent events. One cannot use statistics to prove the limousine actually stopped.******************** We may have similar problems with the shot pattern witnesses. Maybe they made errors not for independent reasons, but for the same reason. Like the last shot made a distinctive "Crack-Thump" sound which they mistook for two different shots. There are other possibilities for witnesses making the same error. Witnesses hearing the sound of a bullet fragment striking the chrome windshield. Witnesses hearing echoes. We cannot use statistics in this case because the errors made by the witnesses might not be independant events. It is not irrational for me not to trust statistics in examining witness testimony, but rational. I know statistics lead me astray in the case of the limousine speed. It would be irrational for me to assume statistics won't lead me astray in the shot pattern testimony.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 06, 2012, 02:32:03 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 534
|
No, I am making rational arguments. I've looked over some of the articles you have made. You are intelligent. But I suspect you never did take a course on statistics. I'm not an expert on statistics but I did take a course on it. Just a guess. A wrong guess and not a very good one. Everyone in science takes a course in statistics. Not only have I taken a course in statistics, my undergraduate degree is in mathematics and physics. I used statistics in physics all the time. Then again that was 35 years ago and I ended up in law so I suppose that may not mean much. You cannot use statistics in any old fashion. You can't gather statistics on the rate that people die in American, make a count of the people living in a building, and make a good prediction on how many people in the building will die this year. The answer may depend on what kind of building is it, a regular apartment building or a convalescent hospital.
You say I reject statistic arguments on the witnesses. This is true.
Here is Statistics, 101. Statistics can be reliably used on a large number of events, but only if the events are all independent. That is quite true. The recollections must be independent. That is why it is so important to look at the early statements which have the greatest likelihood of being independent. But, while there was widespread reporting on the number of shots, almost no one talked about the shot pattern. In any event, the sharing of information will only ruin the independence if that information influences the witness to change their testimony. Studies have shown (Loftus: Eye-witness Testimony) that witnesses are not all that influenced by hearing incorrect reports. I cannot imagine how it could be that so many witnesses purported to recall, in so many different ways, the shot pattern but were simply going by what they may have heard from others in the few hours after the assassination - even if you could prove that EVERY witness heard that from someone before they gave their statements. Given the variety of ways that witnesses described the spacing - some recalling a long pause between 1 and 2, some recalling the continuous reverberation sound from 2 to 3, etc., they would have to be influenced in different ways. Without evidence that they were, it is irrational to conclude that they were. Let's take the "Speed of the limousine" example.
If:
* each witness is as likely to overestimate the speed as to underestimate the speed,
* the reason for any witness making an error is totally unrelated to the reasons a different witness made an error,
then these "events", the account given by each witness, are independent events. So we can use statistics to tell us what happened. If more than half the witnesses said the limousine stopped, and over three quarters said it almost stopped, we can reliably conclude the limousine stopped, or lost almost all it's speed.
First of all, more than half did not say the limousine came to a dead stop. Second, it is a reasonable mistake to make when the limo suddenly slows down. I measure the speed between z302 and z309 at just under 6 mph. Drive at 12 mph and then come up to a stop. Watch your speedometer. When you are down to 6 mph does it seem like you are stopped? The problem is we know that the limousine did not stop, nor did it almost stopped. Clearly, the problem is that the witnesses made errors that were not independent of each other. They must have made errors for the same reason. Likely, they made the same error because most witnesses were closest to the vehicles that did stop and that influenced them.
The witness accounts were not independent events. One cannot use statistics to prove the limousine actually stopped. I don't think you can say that they were not independent. It is just that in this case you may not be able to use witness evidence to prove a fact because witnesses were not in a position to discern between a stop and an almost stop. Besides, you can use statistics to show that the limousine must have slowed down perceptibly to a very slow speed just before the third shot. No one said it sped up. You are trying to show that witnesses can all recall the opposite of what they observed. That is like having the witnesses to the limousine slowing down all saying it speeded up. We may have similar problems with the shot pattern witnesses. Maybe they made errors not for independent reasons, but for the same reason. Like the last shot made a distinctive "Crack-Thump" sound which they mistook for two different shots. There are other possibilities for witnesses making the same error. Witnesses hearing the sound of a bullet fragment striking the chrome windshield. Witnesses hearing echoes.
We cannot use statistics in this case because the errors made by the witnesses might not be independant events. It is not irrational for me not to trust statistics in examining witness testimony, but rational. I know statistics lead me astray in the case of the limousine speed. It would be irrational for me to assume statistics won't lead me astray in the shot pattern testimony.
Statistics do not lead you to conclude that the limo speeded up. So they are useful for something. There is not a significant difference between the number who said that the limo slowed down and those who said that it stopped. So the statistics show you that the witnesses were confused. In that case, the statistics do not help you resolve that issue. But you can certainly conclude that the limo did not speed up before the last shot because the distribution over all possibilities is heavily weighted on "slowing down or stopping" and none on "sped up". In the case of the shot pattern, the distribution is very significant: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginIf the probability was equal for all three - which would be the case if everyone was just guessing, the chance that you would get 45 or more observing one particular pattern is 1 in 20 billion. In other words, the actual distribution did not happen by random chance or luck. There was a much greater likelihood that witnesses recalled that the last two shots were closer together. That is what this tells you. You then have to figure out why that was. If you are going to conclude that it was something other than the witnesses actually hearing that pattern then you will have to have some evidence that human beings hearing 1...2......3 will report hearing 1......2...3 about 75% of the time. But, as you point out, this only proves something if the witnesses were independent. If they all got together and conspired to fabricate the 1......2...3 shot pattern the statistics are worthless. You need evidence of that. You cannot assume it. With any witnesses, such as the shot pattern witnesses, you look at other evidence to see if all those witnesses might be mistaken for some unfathomable reason. But when you do that you see that the evidence fits that pattern - like all the witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot and put the first shot after z186 (Betzner, Willis, L. Willis, etc.), and did things just after the second shot (Greer), or saw JBC fall back on the second shot (Powers, Newmans, Greer, Nellie).
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 10:56:49 PM by Andrew Mason »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 12, 2012, 06:08:45 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
Good, you do know something about statistics.
Well, consider the following examples:
**************************************************
50 witnesses see a car in Chicago slow from 12 MPH to 8 MPH. The errors that the witnesses make are random. The error one witness makes is unrelated to the error made by any other.
One witnesses overestimates the speed of the limousine if he has no coffee in the morning. Underestimates it if he has two cups. Some mornings he has none, some two cups, most of the time one.
Another witness overestimates the speed if he didn't dress warmly enough. Underestimates if he overdresses. Sometimes he underdresses, sometimes overdresses, most of the time he choices the right coat.
And so on.
All witnesses may make errors. But the errors are unrelated to the errors the other witnesses make. Each memory generated by each witness is an independent event.
In all probability, the errors will cancel out. It's possible, but highly unlikely, that most witnesses would say the car stopped or almost stopped. Or that they would say the car did not slow down at all or even speeded up. Possible, but the odds would be astronomical against it.
In this case, statistics can be used to determine the speed of the car. While some witnesses say the car slow down a lot, a few even say it stopped, and others say it maintained it speed, a few even say it speeded up some. But if we average all the results, we get an accurate answer, the car slowed down some, but did not cut it's speed in half. We got an accurate answer because the errors were random and independent of each other.
Question:
Do you agree that this Chicago example, where somehow we know for certain, that witness errors are independent events, would be a good case to use statistics?
**************************************************
50 witnesses see a car in Atlanta slow from 12 MPH to 8 MPH. The errors that the witnesses make are not random. There is a very good chance that the error one witness makes is related to the error made by any other.
Most of the witnesses are not near the car but are near to cars which are following the lead car. So most cannot clearly see the lead car, but they can see the following cars, which do stop.
The witnesses tend to make the same error. They assume the lead car stopped, that is why the car closest to them stopped.
In this case statistics are not appropriate to use to determine the speed of the car. The errors are not random but related to each other. The witnesses tended to make the same mistake.
Question:
Do you agree that this Atlanta example, where somehow we know for certain, that witness errors are not independent events, would be a bad case to use statistics?
**************************************************
Question:
In the case of the spacing of the shots, how do we know that witness errors are independent events? How do we know that many witnesses won't make the same error for the same reason?
For instance, it is know that a rifle makes two noises "Crack-Thump". "Crack" is the sound of the super sonic bullet, followed but the muzzle blast, which travels at the speed of sound. "Crack-Thump" would be most distinct, separated by an eighth of a second, for that last shot.
Questions:
How do we know a certain witness who reported the last two shots were very close together, didn't make this mistake?
How do we know the next witness on the list didn't make the same mistake for the same reason?
If many witnesses did make the same mistake for the same reason, how can we speak of knowing with statistical certainty, what the spacing of the shots were?
****************************************
And let's think, which is more likely the stream of thoughts of a typical witness? Is it:
Stream of Thoughts A:
Oh, I hate firecrackers. But what is Kennedy doing? Is he hurt? And there's another one and another one. God, those were shots! He's dead!
Or:
Stream of Thoughts B:
Oh, I hate firecrackers. But what is Kennedy doing? Is he hurt? And there's another one and another one. But, wait. Those last two sounded different. Were they really both shots? One sounded like a "Crack" and the other a "Thump". I must remember to ask a veteran if this indicates one shot or two.
*****
I believe the stream of thoughts A is much more typical.
And there are many things that could cause witnesses to mistakenly place the last two shots closest together:
* Crack-Thump.
* Bullet fragments hitting the windshield and windshield frame.
* Bullet hitting the skull.
* Echoes.
* Growing realization that shots may have been fired, which may cause a distortion in the perception of time.
And if one witness made one of these errors, why can't assume no one else made the same error. There is always the possibility that many witnesses make the same error, and so we cannot speak of the shot spacing being know to a mathematical certainty.
**********
How do I know there were witness errors? I know there were some because the witnesses disagree. Some say the first two shots were closest together, some say they were evenly apart. Most say the last two were closest together. Just as most witnesses say the limousine stopped or almost stopped.
How do I know the witness errors that did occur were to a large extent caused by the same reason? I don't know for certain. But I know I simply can't assume the errors were caused by unrelated reasons. And people think fairly similarly to each other. Many people may be influenced by the speed of the car closed to them. Many people may be fooled by a Crack-Thump. And if I can't simply assume the errors are unrelated, I can't speak of knowing the shot spacing to a mathematical certainty.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 07:51:15 PM by Joe Elliott »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
February 12, 2012, 10:08:33 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 534
|
50 witnesses see a car in Chicago slow from 12 MPH to 8 MPH. The errors that the witnesses make are random. The error one witness makes is unrelated to the error made by any other.
One witnesses overestimates the speed of the limousine if he has no coffee in the morning. Underestimates it if he has two cups. Some mornings he has none, some two cups, most of the time one.
Another witness overestimates the speed if he didn't dress warmly enough. Underestimates if he overdresses. Sometimes he underdresses, sometimes overdresses, most of the time he choices the right coat.
And so on.
All witnesses may make errors. But the errors are unrelated to the errors the other witnesses make. Each memory generated by each witness is an independent event.
In all probability, the errors will cancel out. It's possible, but highly unlikely, that most witnesses would say the car stopped or almost stopped. Or that they would say the car did not slow down at all or even speeded up. Possible, but the odds would be astronomical against it.
First of all, you have to start with evidence of what they actually recall. This is not necessarily what someone says that they said 25 years later. The compilation by Vince Palamara does not consist of the original testimony of witnesses. Anthony Marsh analysed this evidence ( As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login ) and concluded that of 41 witnesses, 14 said the limousine stopped, 19 said it slowed down and 8 just said the limo sped up after the head shot. In response to your example, this is not a real example of how witnesses observe. Studies of the ability of eyewitnesses to accurately observe events and what affects their ability to recall details have been done. See: Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge Press, 1979, pages 25-31: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginSo your example in which witnesses' ability to recall events is affected by what they ate for breakfast or whether they are hot or cold is not realistic. I am not sure what the point is. In this case, statistics can be used to determine the speed of the car. While some witnesses say the car slow down a lot, a few even say it stopped, and others say it maintained it speed, a few even say it speeded up some. But if we average all the results, we get an accurate answer, the car slowed down some, but did not cut it's speed in half. We got an accurate answer because the errors were random and independent of each other. That is not how you determine facts from witness evidence. You don't just average all the answers together. Some witnesses are accurate, others are not. In the case of the number of shots, you have to look at the evidence and see how the answers are are distributed. You conclude that there were three and only three shots not by averaging all the answers but by applying common sense. The vast majority heard 3 and only 3. Some were not sure but thought there were 2 or 3. Others heard only 2. Some thought they heard 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 shots. One thought there were 4-6 shots but she also saw a dog between Jackie and JFK. You discard the recollections that do not fit with the rest of the evidence. Question:
Do you agree that this Chicago example, where somehow we know for certain, that witness errors are independent events, would be a good case to use statistics? No. You don't average all the errors. There is no reason to believe that the errors will average out to the right answer. Why would that be? If, in the distribution of observations there is one observation that is common to a statistically significant number of witnesses, that observation is very likely the correct one. That is what you use the statistics for: to determine if there is anything significant to the distribution. You don't average them out. 50 witnesses see a car in Atlanta slow from 12 MPH to 8 MPH. The errors that the witnesses make are not random. There is a very good chance that the error one witness makes is related to the error made by any other.
Most of the witnesses are not near the car but are near to cars which are following the lead car. So most cannot clearly see the lead car, but they can see the following cars, which do stop.
The witnesses tend to make the same error. They assume the lead car stopped, that is why the car closest to them stopped.
In this case statistics are not appropriate to use to determine the speed of the car. The errors are not random but related to each other. The witnesses tended to make the same mistake. In that case, you give more weight to the people who were in the best position to observe whether the limo stopped and less weight to those who were far behind. You can also question the witnesses to determine whether they were sure of what they recalled. This was done with Earle Brown for example who initially said that the limo stopped but, on further examination, was only sure that it slowed down and could not say that it came to a dead stop. You don't just blindly average all the witnesses. Question:
Do you agree that this Atlanta example, where somehow we know for certain, that witness errors are not independent events, would be a bad case to use statistics? It depends. Once you have sorted out the witnesses, you may be able to conclude what happened or you may not be able to reliably conclude what happened. If you questioned the witnesses as to why they thought the car stopped and they said that it was because the brake lights on the limo came on, but there were witnesses closer who said that the brake lights came on but the car did not completely stop, would it be reasonable to conclude that the car stopped? You don't just average them all together. Question:
In the case of the spacing of the shots, how do we know that witness errors are independent events? How do we know that many witnesses won't make the same error for the same reason?
For instance, it is know that a rifle makes two noises "Crack-Thump". "Crack" is the sound of the super sonic bullet, followed but the muzzle blast, which travels at the speed of sound. "Crack-Thump" would be most distinct, separated by an eighth of a second, for that last shot. For whom? The crack is the shock wave created by the bullet and is only heard by persons close to the bullet. You would hear the crack if you were in the bullet path. And it would arrive a few milliseconds before the muzzle blast depending on how far you were from the muzzle. The difference is less than a 10th of a second for anyone near the bullet path within about 275 feet of the muzzle. (for a 2000 fps bullet, at 200 feet the bullet takes 1/10 of a second or 100 ms. to get from the gun to the target and the sound takes about 170 ms., a difference of 70 ms which the human brain would not hear as two distinct sounds. Most people would hear only the muzzle blast which is by far the loudest of the two sounds. Very few would hear a distinct crack even if they were in the bullet path. Very few were in that path. Questions:
How do we know a certain witness who reported the last two shots were very close together, didn't make this mistake?
How do we know the next witness on the list didn't make the same mistake for the same reason? We know because almost all of these witnesses were too far from the bullet path to have heard the supersonic crack and even those who heard the crack would not have heard it as a distinct shot because a) it has a much different sound and b) it would have been heard at the same time (<100 ms) as the muzzle blast and these witnesses said they heard distinct loud noises. If many witnesses did make the same mistake for the same reason, how can we speak of knowing with statistical certainty, what the spacing of the shots were?[/b] There is no evidence at all that the bullet crack was heard by any witness as a distinct noise that would be confused as a separate shot. None. So this is pure speculation. We don't base conclusions on speculation. AM
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 10:14:58 PM by Andrew Mason »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
