JFK Assassination Forum 
Logo
HomeThe Robin Unger JFK Assassination GalleryYoutube JFK Assassination Video ChannelSearchNotepadLoginRegister

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 29, 2017, 03:07:43 AM
News: Posts and threads containing swear words, personal insults or crudities, content considered by Admin to be spamming, when reported or observed, may be edited or deleted.
The perpetrator of any offense may receive a posting suspension of a period to be determined by Admin in relation to the considered severity of the offense.
Questions relating to deletions or edits will not be answered by Admin via any communication method here or elsewhere.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 29
Who Can Explain Connally’s Contradiction?  (Read 10314 times)
Super Member
*****

Posts: 610




"And how many of the 1........2....3 shot witnesses could have been wrong?"

Why is it only the witnesses that disagree with your mistaken theories that have the potential of being wrong?


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 2058


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"And how many of the 1........2....3 shot witnesses could have been wrong?"

Why is it only the witnesses that disagree with your mistaken theories that have the potential of being wrong?
Each individual witness could have been wrong.  Let's start out by making no assumption that the witnesses are accurate or even telling the truth.  We will just assume that they were, for the most part, independent.  Let's suppose that they are all terrible witnesses and have only a 50% chance of correctly remembering the shot pattern.  The problem is that the distribution of witness recollections as to the shot pattern looks like As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  See As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login for all the evidence.   That distribution or anything like it is statistically highly unlikely to occur if the witnesses were just guessing.  Some non-random factor was driving the choice of the 1...........2.....3 shot pattern.  All I am saying is that there only things that could have caused such a high proportion to agree: either that is what they heard or they were not independent.   In the absence of evidence that they were colluding with each other to lie or being driven by some factor to believe they heard a pattern that was the exact opposite to what they heard, we can reliably conclude that the shot pattern heard was 1...........2.....3.

And that fits with:  the witnesses putting the first shot after z186; the witnesses seeing JFK react to the first shot; Greer's evidence; Nellie's evidence; the hair flip etc.  In fact, iif these shot pattern witnesses were wrong and the shot pattern was 1....2.......3, as the second shot SBT requires,  then the witnesses putting the first shot after z186; the witnesses seeing JFK react to the first shot; Greer's evidence; Nellie's evidence; etc are all independently completely wrong as well.  The probability that JFK was shot by the Pope is higher than the probability of that happening.


-------------------------
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 06:47:10 PM by Andrew Mason »

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 610


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Each individual witness could have been wrong.  Let's start out by making no assumption that the witnesses are accurate or even telling the truth.  We will just assume that they were, for the most part, independent.  Let's suppose that they are all terrible witnesses and have only a 50% chance of correctly remembering the shot pattern.  The problem is that the distribution of witness recollections as to the shot pattern looks like As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  See As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login for all the evidence.   That distribution or anything like it is statistically highly unlikely to occur if the witnesses were just guessing.  Some non-random factor was driving the choice of the 1...........2.....3 shot pattern.  All I am saying is that there only things that could have caused such a high proportion to agree: either that is what they heard or they were not independent.   In the absence of evidence that they were colluding with each other or being driven by some factor to believe they heard a pattern that was the exact opposite to what they heard, we can reliably conclude that the shot pattern heard was 1...........2.....3.

And that fits with:  the witnesses putting the first shot after z186; the witnesses seeing JFK react to the first shot; Greer's evidence; Nellie's evidence; the hair flip etc.

Is this similar to the majority of medical witnesses at Parkland seeing a big hole in the back of JFK's head, but all being mistaken, too?


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 597


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Each individual witness could have been wrong.  Let's start out by making no assumption that the witnesses are accurate or even telling the truth.  We will just assume that they were, for the most part, independent.  Let's suppose that they are all terrible witnesses and have only a 50% chance of correctly remembering the shot pattern.  The problem is that the distribution of witness recollections as to the shot pattern looks like As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  See As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login for all the evidence.   That distribution or anything like it is statistically highly unlikely to occur if the witnesses were just guessing.  Some non-random factor was driving the choice of the 1...........2.....3 shot pattern.  All I am saying is that there only things that could have caused such a high proportion to agree: either that is what they heard or they were not independent.   In the absence of evidence that they were colluding with each other or being driven by some factor to believe they heard a pattern that was the exact opposite to what they heard, we can reliably conclude that the shot pattern heard was 1...........2.....3.

And that fits with:  the witnesses putting the first shot after z186; the witnesses seeing JFK react to the first shot; Greer's evidence; Nellie's evidence; the hair flip etc.

If I could ask again for you to elucidate on the following:

-Which Z-frames (approx.) were the shots fired at
-When do we see impact (if at all)
-Where the associated 'jiggle' episodes for shot are (Z-frame)
-What other non-witness evidence exists to corroborate this


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 7779


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this similar to the majority of medical witnesses at Parkland seeing a big hole in the back of JFK's head, but all being mistaken, too?





Choice 1- WC wound

1- autopsy Photos
2- autopsy doctors
3- X-rays
4- z-film
5- Many Dealey Plaza witnesses
6- Some Doctors


Choice 2- Where Bob is trying to argue the wound was.

1- Some Doctors


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 2058


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this similar to the majority of medical witnesses at Parkland seeing a big hole in the back of JFK's head, but all being mistaken, too?
No it is not.  First of all, one has to plot the distribution of witness observations.  I have not seen an accurate account of all the witnesses. It has to be a statistically highly significant majority in order to draw any conclusions. What are the numbers? What evidence are your numbers based on.   Second, there may have been a common reason for many people, particularly those not able to make a close examination, to mistakenly think that the back of his head was blown out. 


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 4487


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Each individual witness could have been wrong.  Let's start out by making no assumption that the witnesses are accurate or even telling the truth.  We will just assume that they were, for the most part, independent.  Let's suppose that they are all terrible witnesses and have only a 50% chance of correctly remembering the shot pattern.  The problem is that the distribution of witness recollections as to the shot pattern looks like As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  See As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login for all the evidence.   That distribution or anything like it is statistically highly unlikely to occur if the witnesses were just guessing.  Some non-random factor was driving the choice of the 1...........2.....3 shot pattern.  All I am saying is that there only things that could have caused such a high proportion to agree: either that is what they heard or they were not independent.   In the absence of evidence that they were colluding with each other to lie or being driven by some factor to believe they heard a pattern that was the exact opposite to what they heard, we can reliably conclude that the shot pattern heard was 1...........2.....3.


Mason seems to have some clinical view that all three shots (we're working with a three-shot scenario in this case) are accorded equal weight. But, IMO, many witnesses were dismissive towards the "first shot," terming it a "backfire" or "firecracker". It further appears to me that the "two shot" witnesses would be more likely than "three shot" witnesses to not recall the "first shot", or associate the "first shot" with something they were doing. Thus to "two shot" witnesses, the "other shot I heard" potentially became lost in sequence.

It would seem reasonable to suggest that for many witnesses the awareness that it was more than a "backfire" or "firecracker" would occur when they heard the "second shot", that report assuming more significance (for one thing, two "backfires" in a row would be unlikely). It would be from that moment on that they would have cause to "time-stamp" any subsequent shot. The shot-1 to shot-2 time-span now lost in the subconscious having not been compared to each other, unlike the shot-2 to shot-3 time-span which was consciously compared in terms of time-span.

Quote


And that fits with:  the witnesses putting the first shot after z186; the witnesses seeing JFK react to the first shot; Greer's evidence; Nellie's evidence; the hair flip etc.  In fact, iif these shot pattern witnesses were wrong and the shot pattern was 1....2.......3, as the second shot SBT requires,  then the witnesses putting the first shot after z186; the witnesses seeing JFK react to the first shot; Greer's evidence; Nellie's evidence; etc are all independently completely wrong as well.  The probability that JFK was shot by the Pope is higher than the probability of that happening.

That is your interpretation. We have gone through much of it and found it lacking. You offered up a SketchUp representation of your theory that turned into a laughingstock (Daliesque cross-section and Cirque du Soleil torso twist). Though a smart and logical person, and generally trustworthy on the evidence, you can't be reasoned with when it comes to your theory.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 610


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No it is not.  First of all, one has to plot the distribution of witness observations.  I have not seen an accurate account of all the witnesses. It has to be a statistically highly significant majority in order to draw any conclusions. What are the numbers? What evidence are your numbers based on.   Second, there may have been a common reason for many people, particularly those not able to make a close examination, to mistakenly think that the back of his head was blown out. 

Even the doctors who looked right into the large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 29


Jump to:  

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963

JFK Assassination Photographs Gallery

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines