How Good Are People at Counting?

[John Iacoletti]

Concede?

Yes.  It seems you are only willing to use the distracted witness excuse when witnesses say things you don't like.

Three shells were found in the sniper?s nest. The three most likely explanations are:

1.   Oswald left a shell in the rifle, from the last time he fired the rifle in practice. This shell was ejected on November 22, but was actually fired several months earlier.

2.   Oswald left an extra shell on the floor to create a mystery.


3.   Oswald fired three shots.

Possibility 1 and 2 seem unlikely to me. So, it was probably 3 shots.

There you go again.  "Most likely", "unlikely".  Based on what?  For one thing all of your options assume Oswald was responsible for the shells being there.  Then you assume that these shells created the shots that witnesses heard.  All without any evidence.  But that aside, why does it "seem unlikely" that an empty shell was ejected before shots were fired?  Just because you've already decided that there were 3 shots because jiggles?  That would be a circular argument.

The three-shot scenario is best supported by the jiggle analysis. You like to poohbah the jiggle analysis. But there were clearly fairly loud gunshots fired. And loud gunshots will cause people to jiggle the camera. It is actually unbelievable that these gunshots would not cause Mr. Zapruder to jiggle the camera.

I'm not poobahing jiggle analysis.  But how do you get from 13 or so jiggles to exactly 3 shots without handwaving and circular arguments.  In particular, what about the jiggle at Z293 which was just as strong as your Z153 jiggle?  You keep avoiding this question, but it's not going away.

Shells being found at the crime scene matching the gun he was carrying when arrested.

Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested.  And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?

Why was he found within a half hour of the Officer Tippit murder within a half mile of that murder scene?

This is reason?  A whole lot of people were "within a half mile of that murder scene".

Why did he duck into a shoe store just when the police drove by?

That's just your assumption.

Why did he duck into a theater a minute later as the police drove by again?

Well, given that nobody actually saw him duck into a theater, that would seem to be an assumption too.

Why was he found in the theater carrying a gun?

Even that has very little evidentiary basis.  Basically you have to rely on McDonald who was known to embellish his role in the events of the day.  You know, one of those unreliable witnesses you've been talking about.  But let's assume that Oswald did have a gun in the theater.  This proves that he shot a cop...how exactly?

Why did he slug and try to shoot the first policeman who approached him in the theater?

Loaded question.  Why did you beat your wife?  There is ZERO evidence that he tried to shoot anybody.  NONE.

How does one top that?

By actually basing your beliefs on evidence, not assumptions and handwaving.

[Joe Elliott]

Everyone is dodging the main point of this thread.

Can we use majority opinions, ?64% of the witnesses saw such and such? to reliably establish what happened?


Did the limousine stop, slow down or maintain it?s speed?

How many shots were there?

How were the shots spaced?

Did anything unusual happen during the basketball practice?


This question is especially focused on distracted witnesses. Witnesses concentrating on their few seconds near the President and First Lady. Witnesses trying to count the number of basketball practices.


Are these witnesses reliable?

Yes or No.

And if ?Yes?, try to justify your opinion.

[Chris Davidson]

Two shots together
Extant z313 + .715 sec later/4.2ft farther west down Elm St.
13.1 Zframes - Rounded to 14 whole frames
Limo speed 3.74mph
Did it stop completely, we'll never know.
Kinney was not distracted.


"At this time I glanced from the taillights of the President's car, that I use for gauging distances for driving. I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with his right hand. There was a second of pause and then two more shots were heard. Agent Clinton Hill jumped from the follow-up car and dashed to the aid of the President and First Lady in the President's car. I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy. At this time I stepped on the siren and gas pedal at the same time. Agent Greer driving the President's car did the same."

[Colin Crow]

How many were expecting to see a paper gun bag.

If you are then you will realize why the experiment fails to explain the phenomena of 12 people not seeing CE 142 in the SE corner.
Show us where all 12 missed the bag, Six out of 12 is more accurate, thus matching the 50% average found in IB science

And where do you get the idea that all 12 missed the bag?

"Twelve officers, all of whom had been on the sixth floor of the Depository, were questioned by the Warren Commission on whether they saw a long paper bag. Conspiracy authors point out that SIX of the officers stated they had not seen the bag. But the other six said they had."*

Cite>McAdams

*Take note, lurkers

It is to do with the "when" Bill. Most of the early guys saw a lunch bag.....so bag doesn?t seem to be an issue.

In any event...Montgomery later recounted that he found the bag folded and tucked between boxes not in the corner. That explains why the early guys didn?t see it.  Question is, why did those that claimed to have seen it on the sixth floor place it in the corner when it clearly wasn?t initially.....oh what a tangled web.

[John Iacoletti]

I was the one who brought up IB science a few months ago. You don't remember? My point is why are you?seemingly?so incurious about scientifically proven phenomena.

Because a gorilla walking through a basketball game with intentionally distracted viewers is nothing like a bag on the floor of a crime scene where law enforcement officers are specifically examining the scene for evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

Everyone is dodging the main point of this thread.

Can we use majority opinions, ?64% of the witnesses saw such and such? to reliably establish what happened?


Did the limousine stop, slow down or maintain it?s speed?

How many shots were there?

How were the shots spaced?

Did anything unusual happen during the basketball practice?


This question is especially focused on distracted witnesses. Witnesses concentrating on their few seconds near the President and First Lady. Witnesses trying to count the number of basketball practices.


Are these witnesses reliable?

Yes or No.

And if ?Yes?, try to justify your opinion.

This question is especially focused on distracted witnesses. Witnesses concentrating on their few seconds near the President and First Lady. Witnesses trying to count the number of basketball practices.

Or witnesses distracted by a gunned down police officer..... is that what you mean?

[Andrew Mason]

How Good Are People at Counting?

Before reading any further, first watch the following video:


Well, it probably did no good, since most readers are already aware of it. But it was worth a try for those few who might not have known of it.

What this illustrates, to me, is how poor distracted witnesses are at making observations.

No one argues that every witness is a good observer.  We do not even have to assume that most witnesses are good observers.  (Although, controlled studies of human behaviour indicate that the majority of witnesses are correct when reporting details of highly salient facts- facts that were recalled by most of the witnesses).  Rather, it is about the statistical significance of the observations of witnesses who independently report having made a particular observation. 

If I had not seen the video and I asked 100 people who had watched the video (alone and without being exposed to anyone else's reaction) to independently (ie. without discussing it with any other witness) tell me what they saw and if only 5 people told me they saw a person dressed as a gorilla walk through and 95 failed to notice anything unusual, I could still very reliably conclude that a person dressed as a gorilla walked through.  That is so highly statistically significant that it leaves no room for any other conclusion.   The gorilla observations are reliable because the alternative is the 5 people all, independently, had the same strange hallucination.  A witness would have to make up the "gorilla" story.  If another wanted to make up a story as well, the chance that that person would independently choose to make up the same story is very small (one could say it was zero, since there are an infinite number of things a person can make up).  If another 3 reported observing the same thing, independently, that makes it even more of certainty.  The key is "independence".  If only one person reported seeing a gorilla, I could draw no conclusion because I have no independent corroboration - no way to determine whether that person has a vision problem or some kind of mental issue or is simply lying.

In the JFK assassination, the majority of witnesses did not observe what JFK did in response to the first shot.  We ignore the lack of observations because the lack of observations are not independent events - they were either not looking at the president or, if they were, could not recall what he did.  We pay attention to those who did make an observation of what he did in response to the first shot.  As far as I can tell, with the possible exception of Mary Woodward (possibly, because she gave evidence that the last two shots were close together, which conflicts with JFK not being hit by the first shot) all witnesses who reported seeing JFK at the time of the first shot observed an unusual kind of reaction. There were at least 20 such witnesses. No witness who observed JFK's reaction said that he continued to smile and/or wave afterward, let alone for 3 seconds afterward.  If only half of those observations were independent, I could confidently conclude that JFK reacted in an odd way to the first shot, similar to what is seen in the zfilm after JFK is struck in the neck/back. We can, therefore, reliably conclude that JFK was struck in the neck/back on the first shot.

This shows the fallacy of using a majority consensus to determine if the limousine was stopped or at least almost stopped. Or on the spacing of the shots.

No it doesn't.  You would not be comfortable concluding from the 5 "gorilla" witnesses that there was a "gorilla". I would. I would be right. You would be wrong.

Witnesses are good at counting basketball passes, when instructed to count basketball passes. And good at counting shots, when instructed to count the number and spacing of shots. Well, at least if the shot only makes one noise, but not a ?Crack-Thump?. But not good when focusing on something else.

Who says they have to be trying to count shots?   Recalling three shots, particularly when they form a pattern, does not require conscious counting.  The memory of hearing a loud noise a pause of several seconds and then two more "in rapid succession" can be recalled relatively easily afterward.  Counting 15 passes in that video cannot.  You cannot use the video to say that the witnesses as a whole cannot be relied on as to the number and pattern of three shots, particularly when that number and pattern is the only one that fits with other bodies of independent evidence.