JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
How Good Are People at Counting?
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on February 10, 2018, 11:18:40 PM ---
Three (if that's what it was) loud noises became increasing "salient" as the sounds unfolded. The first few loud noises weren't "salient" to everyone. Some dismissed the first loud report as a backfire or firecracker. They were also in a distraction setting with peak concentration on the motorcade at the time of the first shot.
While it's true they could not fail to hear three shots (if there were, in fact, three shots), it doesn't mean it was stored in memory equally. For some of the witnesses, their perception and retention of initial events (some termed the first shot as a backfire or firecracker) could be affected by a greater concentration on the latter shots and things occurring visually up to and including the shock of the head shot and the dramatic Jackie/Clint potential tragedy.
--- End quote ---
This is correct. They may have a better memory of the previous 5 seconds, when they first realized that shots had been fired, than they did of 5 to 10 seconds earlier and worse yet for 10 to 15 seconds earlier. If certain events are not remembered within a few seconds, they may be, likely will be, forgotten altogether.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on February 10, 2018, 11:18:40 PM ---
Spectators in the stands at the Boston Marathon Bombing barely react until the second bomb goes off.
--- End quote ---
Yes, an example of distracted witnesses becoming aware witnesses.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on February 11, 2018, 12:18:07 AM ---No. I?m not assuming five decided to lie. I am postulating that one person was mistaken and influenced four others, before they could be interviewed.
--- End quote ---
But if the 5 witnesses said that they saw a gorilla and, in fact, did not (and, of course, they would know they did not) they would be lying in saying that they saw one. If they were truthful, they would say something like: "I don't remember but I think there may have been a gorilla because Bob told me".
--- Quote ---This is real helpful. To paraphrase what you are saying:
What the majority thinks may have happened is a matter of statistical significance. Except when it isn?t.
--- End quote ---
No. That is not what I am saying. If 51% said there were 3 shots and 49% said there were 4, I would not be able to conclude whether there were 3 or 4 shots. I would conclude that witnesses had difficulty observing the number of shots and were confused by something. This is because 51-49 is not statistically significant. Even 60-40 may not be enough, especially if the quality of the recollections was poor (eg. " I am not sure but I would say there were three, maybe four, no i think three"). You cannot simply draw conclusions based on what the majority observed.
--- Quote ---You can tell when the statistical method can be used using, what appears to me, by intuition. If the majority reports a certain shot pattern, but a minority reports a different pattern, you can tell, that in this case, the majority is right. But in the case of the gorilla film, if the majority reports no gorilla, but a minority reports a gorilla, you can tell, that in this case, the statistical method cannot be used, because the minority, in this case, are probably right.
--- End quote ---
No. The point of the video is that most people are not observing anything other than the white players so if they noticed nothing, their failure to notice is not significant. But for those who did notice, the similarity of their observations cannot be explained by anything other than 1. they saw the gorilla or 2. they were lying and colluding.
--- Quote ---It?s not about mathematics. It will only be mathematics if the witness errors are random. We cannot assume that.
--- End quote ---
Again: two possibilities: they saw a gorilla or they were colluding and lying about it. If they were not colluding you can conclude that any errors would be random.
--- Quote ---The bottom line is, using the statistical method to determine the approximate ?Speed of the Limousine? using witnesses fails. We would not know this is we did not have the films of the assassination.
As you acknowledge, the statistical method fails in this case. Probably, indeed, because most witnesses were not in a clear position to see the limousine, only the follow up cars which did (probably) stop. But that did not prevent them from giving a confident opinion. Something we should remember about with the ?Spacing of the Shots? witnesses.
--- End quote ---
You can tell by the distribution of witnesses to the limo slowing down that the ability of many to observe whether it actually stopped was restricted. They saw the brake lights and a motorcycle stop (it actually did) and other cars in the motorcade ( not seen in the zfilm) may have actually stopped. They formed the opinion that it stopped. This was an inference based on what they saw. We can see this in some of the witnesses who initially said it stopped and then had to admit that they weren't sure it stopped, just that it slowed eg. Dallas police officer Earle Brown
--- Quote ---This is a classic case as to why we cannot rely on the statistical method. Because the errors witnesses made were not random. We cannot assume these errors are always going to be random. Which is what we need if the statistical method is going to be dependable.
--- End quote ---
There are two possibilities: errors are random or they are caused by a common factor that induces the error (such as collusion/lying). If the circumstances permit a possible explanation for error other than collusion/lying (such as the brake lights combined with slow speed combined with the motorcycle stopping and the officer getting off and giving people the same impression that the car had actually stopped) you can look at that. But, invariably, in such cases you rarely get statistically significant distributions - as we see in the "limo stopped" witnesses. There were 8 who said it stopped and 19 who said it slowed or that the motorcade stopped without specifying whether the limo stopped. We can't be sure if any cars in the motorcade actually stopped but we certainly cannot say that none stopped.
--- Quote ---Could the ?Shot Spacing? witnesses be an example of widespread witness error, non-random witness error, just like the ?Speed of the Limousine? witnesses? Easily. Below is a possible theory:
Most witnesses were distracted. Concentrating on the President and the First Lady. They may have ignored, possibly forgot what they assumed were backfires or firecrackers. When the realized shots were fired, they may have remembered the more recent shots better than the first. Hence:
First shot: Had forgotten about 15 seconds later, it never really got stored in their permanent memory.
Second shot: Remembered, but not very well.
Third shot: Remembered it very well, as a ?Crack-Thump?.
Hence, many may have remembered ?Bang <pause> Bang Bang?.
As I recall, some witnesses thought all the shots occurred in pairs, ?Bang Bang <pause> Bang Bang?.
My theory may be false. But we cannot assume it is false. There may have been not just significant but non-random witness errors, in the ?Shot Pattern? witnesses, just was there was in the ?Speed of the Limousine? witnesses.
--- End quote ---
The question is whether it is true. The only way you can determine if it is a true theory is by comparing it to the evidence. Not a single witness said they had difficulty recalling the 1......2....3 shot pattern. Ask Robert Jackson or Mary Woodward what the shot pattern was. They still remember it. Ask them what they think of your theory.
Bill Chapman:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2018, 08:35:01 PM ---You haven't demonstrated that Oswald did anything with that revolver.
No, you state your conclusions as facts.
Says the guy who can't even show that a rifle was ever in that bag.
Those are conclusions based on your faulty characterization of the actual evidence.
That's hysterical. Do you think anybody is going to buy that?
Take that up with Joseph "was there a number two man in there" Ball.
--- End quote ---
No, you state your conclusions as facts
>You state the facts as lies
Those are conclusions based on your faulty characterization of the actual evidence
>Your conclusions are cherry-picked misrepresentations of the facts.
That's hysterical. Do you think anybody is going to buy that?
>Do you think anyone is going to take seriously someone (you and Caprio) who claims the only reason the DPD converged on the TT was solely because a man was reported for being suspected of not buying a ticket?
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Bill Chapman on February 10, 2018, 11:42:28 PM ---It was a description you used to describe Oswald in relation to the scene around the TT
--- End quote ---
I think you're confused. Must be inattentional blindness.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Bill Chapman on February 11, 2018, 08:15:54 AM --->You state the facts as lies
--- End quote ---
Provide a single example.
--- Quote --->Your conclusions are cherry-picked misrepresentations of the facts.
--- End quote ---
Provide a single example.
--- Quote --->Do you think anyone is going to take seriously someone (you and Caprio) who claims the only reason the DPD converged on the TT was solely because a man was reported for being suspected of not buying a ticket?
--- End quote ---
Neither Caprio or I have ever claimed that. It's appropriate that you posted a troll graphic, because that's exactly what you're doing: accusing people of saying stuff that they never said.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version