Perception of Reality

[Andrew Mason]

Who said it was appropriate? Nobody did, so you can back down off your strawman, ok? Oh how you misrepresent.
The point I was making was about a "narrative". Allow me to lay out the rest of my post you so judiciously avoided:

Well, you said "It must occur".  I disagreed.  I said it must never occur.

"When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate."

The rest of your horseshit post is not worthy of repeating other than to say there is no greater culprit of cherry-picking than you. Your Hickey/fringe ruffle  is the worst kind of cherry picking.
Your utterly destroyed  theory of a hit around z271 is predicated on nothing but the cherry picking you so righteously denounce.
I ask for an open mind and I get you 

Well, Hickey is really the only witness who observed JFK's hair fly up on the second shot.  But there is no witness who gave conflicting evidence. So, it is not exactly "cherry-picking" to note that JFK's hair does fly up at z273-276 and that there is quite a bit evidence that a second shot occurred shortly before the head shot.

You do not seem to understand what "cherry-picking" means.  It means that you ignore the preponderance of evidence and go with the one piece of evidence that conflicts with the preponderance of evidence to make your case.  My "horseshit post" is just pointing this out.  You still seem to be missing the point.  You seem to be completely unaware that you are "cherry-picking" by concluding that JBC was hit in the back on the first shot and that there was a shot after the head-shot.   Both conclusions conflict with the preponderance of evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

Well, you said "It must occur".  I disagreed.  I said it must never occur.

No you didn't. You never said it "must never occur".
Are you lying or just amazingly confused?

Well, Hickey is really the only witness who observed JFK's hair fly up on the second shot.

Isn't that a wake up call for you?
None of the other witnesses who were looking directly at JFK at the time of the assassination report this.
Doesn't that mean anything to you?
Does it mean anything to you that Brehm describes JFK's hair flying up at the moment of the headshot?
Does it mean anything to you that Hickey fails to mention JFK's exploding head?
Of course it doesn't, because you cherry pick Hickey's faulty observation of JFK's headshot to support your utterly destroyed theory that there was a bullet strike at z271.

But there is no witness who gave conflicting evidence.

Why should any witness give conflicting evidence for something that didn't happen?
Brehm described JFK's hair flying up at the headshot, isn't that counter-evidence?

So, it is not exactly "cherry-picking" to note that JFK's hair does fly up at z273-276 and that there is quite a bit evidence that a second shot occurred shortly before the head shot.

JFK's hair does not "fly up" at this point. His fringe slightly ruffles and no more than that. In your intense, cherry picking desperation you have to grasp onto anything you can and then cry "evidence".

You do not seem to understand what "cherry-picking" means.  It means that you ignore the preponderance of evidence and go with the one piece of evidence that conflicts with the preponderance of evidence to make your case.  My "horseshit post" is just pointing this out.  You still seem to be missing the point.

 "...the preponderance of evidence..."

 

You completely ignore the most compelling evidence in this case and hang on to a handful of cherry picked, disparate statements that may or may not support your  theory of a shot at z271.
Please do not spout on about the insidious nature of cherry picking when there is no greater example of it than yourself.
 

[Charles Collins]

When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate.

Even the most open-minded people are susceptible to confirmation bias. I do not claim to be an exception to this phenomenon. If one has formed an opinion about something, he will often times give more weight to the side of conflicting evidence which agrees with his already formed opinion. The question should be: What is the reliability of the evidence that was used to form the opinion in the first place? And: How does the reliability of that evidence compare to the reliability of the conflicting evidence? Personally, I have tried to use reliable evidence to form an opinion about the timing of the shots. And a large percentage of this reliable evidence is directly related to the photographic record. The films and photos are documented to be related to specific times during the shooting.  Witness accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Therefore an opinion which is formed based heavily on witness accounts (without corroborating physical evidence) is on shakier ground than an opinion which is based on more reliable evidence.

[Andrew Mason]

No you didn't. You never said it "must never occur".
Are you lying or just amazingly confused?

Saying something is "never appropriate" is just a more polite way of saying it "must never occur".  Or did you really think that I meant that sometimes it should occur?  In case you still find it confusing, I will say it this way  "Cherry-picking is never appropriate: ie. cherry-picking must never occur".  I take it that you disagree with that statement.  You think it is ok to cherry-pick - to select a single piece of evidence that is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.  I guess we will have to disagree.

None of the other witnesses who were looking directly at JFK at the time of the assassination report this.
Doesn't that mean anything to you?

It would if there was no independent confirmation that what he observed actually occurred.  But the zfilm shows it occurring:

It just means that Hickey was particularly observant to have noticed an event which, without question, occurred.  And if one watches these frames carefully one realizes that it is the only bit of hair on anyone that moves and it moves INTO the apparent wind. What do you think could have caused it?  Just asking.

Does it mean anything to you that Brehm describes JFK's hair flying up at the moment of the headshot?

Brehm gave two statements.  In his first statement to the Dallas Herald (23Nov63) his statement is quoted and mentions only two shots. In his November 24/63 statement, after no doubt hearing all sorts of media reports that there were 3 shots, repeats what he said a few days earlier but adds that "a third shot followed" without saying anything more.  I am unable to find any reliable independent corroboration for a third shot following the head shot and much evidence that conflicts.  I assume Brehm was trying to be accurate but I cannot be sure that he recalled more than two shots and he was of the view that the second of those two shots struck JFK in the head.  It is, perhaps, unusual to describe the head shot as hair flying up but it is fairly clear that this is what he was referring to because he said that the President then rolled over to his side.   But just because Brehm described the head shot that way from his position does not mean that Hickey was describing it that way.  Hickey made a deliberate distinction between the last two shots, the first of which coincided with JFK's hair lifting and no apparent damage whereas the third appeared to strike him in the head.

Does it mean anything to you that Hickey fails to mention JFK's exploding head?

People describe what they recall.  He recalled seeing evidence that the shot hit JFK in the head.  He also recalled seeing no evidence that the second shot hit JFK in the head and did recall seeing JFK's hair on the right side fly forward without any sign of hitting him.

Of course it doesn't, because you cherry pick Hickey's faulty observation of JFK's headshot to support your utterly destroyed theory that there was a bullet strike at z271.

How is it "cherry-picking" to simply point out what he said he observed and to point out that precisely what he said he saw is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said it occurred (shortly before the head shot)?   What evidence conflicts with it?

Brehm described JFK's hair flying up at the headshot, isn't that counter-evidence?

No. For the reasons stated, Brehm was describing the headshot.  Hickey was describing a shot before the headshot that did not strike JFK that coincided with the movement of JFK's hair and then he described the third and last shot striking JFK in the head.

JFK's hair does not "fly up" at this point. His fringe slightly ruffles and no more than that. In your intense, cherry picking desperation you have to grasp onto anything you can and then cry "evidence".

It is plain to see that the hair on JFK's right side lifts together - and it is the only person whose hair moves. Here, I'll make it bigger for you:

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe it is possible that JFK was shot more than once in the head. Before it explodes... he nods noticeably and suddenly forward.

[Andrew Mason]

Even the most open-minded people are susceptible to confirmation bias. I do not claim to be an exception to this phenomenon. If one has formed an opinion about something, he will often times give more weight to the side of conflicting evidence which agrees with his already formed opinion. The question should be: What is the reliability of the evidence that was used to form the opinion in the first place? And: How does the reliability of that evidence compare to the reliability of the conflicting evidence? Personally, I have tried to use reliable evidence to form an opinion about the timing of the shots. And a large percentage of this reliable evidence is directly related to the photographic record. The films and photos are documented to be related to specific times during the shooting.  Witness accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Therefore an opinion which is formed based heavily on witness accounts (without corroborating physical evidence) is on shakier ground than an opinion which is based on more reliable evidence.

Every human being is susceptible to confirmation bias, as you point out.

When I began looking at the evidence of the shots in detail, I had already formed the conclusion based on the abundant evidence of Oswald's involvement that the WC conclusion was correct. I had assumed the SBT was correct but was of the view, like the WC, that it occurred on the first shot.  I started out with an open mind, however when I began, about 20 years ago, to examine the evidence in detail.  It quickly became apparent to me that the trajectory did not really work for the first shot SBT. And the conflict with Connally's evidence was difficult to explain. But my confirmation bias, that the SBT was likely correct, held.

 I then became aware that the SBT being touted was no longer the first shot SBT and that the SBT occurred on the second shot, the first shot having missed the entire car. But by this time I had become very familiar with the evidence that JFK had reacted to the first shot and for the 1.......2..3 shot sequence. The second shot SBT proponents had not even tried to deal with the abundant evidence that the first shot had struck JFK and that the last two shots were closer together. 

It was readily apparent that the second shot SBT was wrong.  But I was not yet prepared to abandon the first shot SBT. I still found Spector's argument that it must have struck JBC to be compelling.

It was only after really taking a hard look at the evidence and setting aside my confirmation bias that I was able to see that the SBT on the first or second shot was not correct and that a much simpler explanation that fit ALL the bodies of evidence emerged. The evidence in this case establishes that SBT is not needed to explain the correct LN conclusion: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.

 So my entire approach has been one of trying to overcome confirmation bias and just look at the evidence.

[Charles Collins]

Every human being is susceptible to confirmation bias, as you point out.

When I began looking at the evidence of the shots in detail, I had already formed the conclusion based on the abundant evidence of Oswald's involvement that the WC conclusion was correct. I had assumed the SBT was correct but was of the view, like the WC, that it occurred on the first shot.  I started out with an open mind, however when I began, about 20 years ago, to examine the evidence in detail.  It quickly became apparent to me that the trajectory did not really work for the first shot SBT. And the conflict with Connally's evidence was difficult to explain. But my confirmation bias, that the SBT was likely correct, held.

 I then became aware that the SBT being touted was no longer the first shot SBT and that the SBT occurred on the second shot, the first shot having missed the entire car. But by this time I had become very familiar with the evidence that JFK had reacted to the first shot and for the 1.......2..3 shot sequence. The second shot SBT proponents had not even tried to deal with the abundant evidence that the first shot had struck JFK and that the last two shots were closer together. 

It was readily apparent that the second shot SBT was wrong.  But I was not yet prepared to abandon the first shot SBT. I still found Spector's argument that it must have struck JBC to be compelling.

It was only after really taking a hard look at the evidence and setting aside my confirmation bias that I was able to see that the SBT on the first or second shot was not correct and that a much simpler explanation that fit ALL the bodies of evidence emerged. The evidence in this case establishes that SBT is not needed to explain the correct LN conclusion: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.

 So my entire approach has been one of trying to overcome confirmation bias and just look at the evidence.

Your approach appears to rely heavily on witness accounts that simply say they believe JFK reacted to the first shot.

My approach tries to be more precise. Here is just one example:

Victoria Adams spoke to detective James R. Leavelle of the DPD on 2/17/64. This is part of her statement: "When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot."

I reviewed the Tina Towner film and paid close attention to the actions of JFK. In the final few seconds of that film JFK does turn his head toward the TSBD and his right arm raises up and he waves just as the film ends. Just like Victoria Adams said.

Next I used Mark Tyler"s Motorcade 63 animation and paused it approximately where the end of Towner's film is indicated. Then I plotted the location of JFK in the backseat of the limo using the scale of Mark's animation. And placed a convertible with a male character in the backseat in that plotted location (relative to the southeast corner of the TSBD) in my 3-D computer model. Next I viewed the scene (using my 3-D model) as Victoria would have seen it from the fourth floor window. The results were just as Victoria said: right in front of her window and just before going behind the tree is the convertible with the male character. The front portion of the convertible is hidden from her view by the tree limbs but the rear seat and it's occupant are still visible.

Tina Towner has said that she stopped filming just before the first shot. Dale Myers calculated that Towner's film ends just before Zapruder began filming that portion of his film. And in the first portion of Zapruder's film JFK is seen lowering his right arm just after the wave that was begun at the end of Towner's film.

I asked for and received permission from Mark Tyler to post a couple of screenshots that will let you see some of the items I used in the proceedures I have just described.


The Towner film start position:





The Towner film end position:




The view (from the 3-D model 4th floor window) that Victoria Adams was watching the motorcade from:




The free 3-D program that I use has its limitations and mine as its user. But I have used the sniper's nest model to demonstrate several things and it has proven to be accurate. I still need to fine tune things like the dimensions of the tree, but this is close enough to show that Victoria Adams was accurate in her description of what she saw. In the book "The Girl on the Stairs" by Barry Ernest Victoria clarifies her earlier statements and specifically says that she heard the first shot while JFK was hidden from her view by the tree.

Anyway, this appears to me to be further evidence that the first shot happened in the vicinity of Z-133. I believe it probably happened just before Z-133.

If any others with 3-D computer models cares to take the time to verify this work I would greatly appreciate it.

The other folks here with 3-D models have confirmed my findings. Has anyone at all agreed with your theory?