Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272

[John Corbett]

That misses the point.  Why would anyone provide a statement containing details that they did not remember?  I wasn’t expecting you to do that.  I asked whether, assuming that you gave a statement containing details that you did remember clearly in your mind whether you would maintain your statement was not reliable.  I thought it was a rhetorical question. Apparently, you have very low confidence in your ability to make observations that you can retain in memory for a few hours. Either that or you think you would make a statement to police authorities containing details that you could not recall.

Studies have shown that even when witnesses were confident about their recollections, they could still be wrong. I don't care if the witnesses were clear in their mind. That doesn't mean what they remember was accurate.

[Andrew Mason]

One might correctly remember one and not the other.
For the record, I didn't remember either. I was not in Dealey Plaza when the shooting took place. I was in 7th grade math class.
I have said on a number of occasions that I might or might not remember specific details about an event. That makes me the same as the other 8 billion people on the planet.

I wasn’t asking whether you would have remembered those details.  I asked whether, assuming that you gave a statement containing details that you did remember clearly in your mind, you would maintain your statement was not reliable.  I thought it was a rhetorical question.

Apparently, you would make a statement to police authorities containing details that you could not recall with any clarity.

Why would anyone provide a statement mentioning details that they did not remember?

I would suggest you greatly overestimate the general populace's ability to perceive accurate details of an event, especially a shocking event that happens with no warning and lasts less than 10 seconds.

I would suggest that you underestimate the honesty of innocent average citizens when making statements to police.  You seem to think most would volunteer details that they did not really remember.  And then when the vast majority of the witnesses reported the same details that you think they couldn’t remember, you are ready to conclude that the agreement on those details could be just a random coincidence.

It's hard to forget something you didn't notice in the first place. Most people did hear 3 shots but some only remembered hearing 2. I find it probable that the one they either didn't hear or didn't remember hearing was the first shot. For whatever reason, that shot didn't seem to register with them.

If they could hear, they heard them. They just were not counting them or afterward could not remember anything that enabled them to say how many there were, such as a shot grouping of one, pause and then two close together.

….
Do you have a better explanation for why some of the witnesses such as Jackie or Clint Hill only remembered 2 shots?

Many of those who recalled only two shots were occupied doing other things (Landis, Hill, Darnell, Jackie) so their minds were focused on what they were seeing. Jean Newman wasn’t occupied that way but seemed to be really focused on watching Jackie.

 There aren’t that many who recalled exactly two. The 17 total mentioned in the HSCA report aren’t identified. There are not nearly that many in Stuart Galanor’s list of 218 witnesses and there are some listed there as 2 shot witnesses whose statements mention 3 (e. g. Thomas Johns, Royce Skelton).

[Andrew Mason]

Since it's survey data, I doubt it took into account the elevation. Adding the elevation increases the distance.It's a miniscule difference but since your data doesn't take into account elevation, it becomes even less relevant.

If you had just clicked the link you would see that it took into account elevation. That is how they determined the distance between the rifle and JFK.

I agree the difference in bullet travel time between an impact on JBC at z271 and and impact on JFK at z313 is not material. I thought you were saying it was. What was your point?

Why would you think Oswald was would try to fire his rifle as fast as was humanly possible? Was he trying to win a prize?

Maybe because the first two did not kill JFK and he wanted to make other shots before the target too far away

[Andrew Mason]

Studies have shown that even when witnesses were confident about their recollections, they could still be wrong. I don't care if the witnesses were clear in their mind. That doesn't mean what they remember was accurate.

I was asking whether you think a statement containing details that YOU clearly remembered would be reliable.  Apparently not.

[Andrew Mason]

What Hickey says doesn't establish the bullet caused his hair to fly up. The bullet would have arrived before the sound because the bullet was traveling almost twice the speed of sound.

The difference in bullet speed (2000 fps) and speed of sound (1127 fps) means that over a distance of 233 feet from muzzle to target the difference in arrival times is 233(1/1127-1/2000)=90 ms or about 2 frames.  So if the bullet sound coincided with the hair flying up, as Hickey said, and that hair motion began at z273 then the bullet arrived 90 ms or almost 2 frames earlier ie. at z271.

[John Corbett]

The difference in bullet speed (2000 fps) and speed of sound (1127 fps) means that over a distance of 233 feet from muzzle to target the difference in arrival times is 233(1/1127-1/2000)=90 ms or about 2 frames.  So if the bullet sound coincided with the hair flying up, as Hickey said, and that hair motion began at z273 then the bullet arrived 90 ms or almost 2 frames earlier ie. at z271.

That doesn't establish that JFK's hair movement was the result of a passing bullet. That is a supposition on your part.

[John Corbett]

I was asking whether you think a statement containing details that YOU clearly remembered would be reliable.  Apparently not.

Of course it's not. People who think they clearly remember an event can be dead wrong. Being certain isn't the same as being correct.

I continue to be amazed at your willingness to put so much faith in the weakest form of evidence we have which is witness testimony.