Mary Woodward said there were 3 shots and the 1st shot missed everything

[Andrew Mason]

Probably because he mixed the sounds of the shots with their echoes and sorta hallucinated that it was two seconds.

Bob Jackson is 92 and living in Manitou Springs, Colorado. Why don’t you ask him yourself?  Ask him how well he remembers the spacing of the shots.
 

Okay.

Roger Craig?

Why is that a question?.

Which proves that even a U.S. Senator can be confused by the echoes of Dealey Plaza.

Secret Service Agents, too.

How does your speculation about what the shots sounded like prove anything?
 

18 H 747 ?

You meant to say 18 H, CE 1024, page 747.

The correct citation is 18 H 747.  It is from CE1024.

Seven seconds?

His estimation of time is likely poor. But even a first shot 9 or 10 seconds before the head shot, which is what you are suggesting, puts the second shot no earlier than z258 according to Sweatt.
 

2) He thought the Secret Service car was "a yellow closed sedan" that was behind LBJ's car!

What colour do yo think it was? It looked yellowish to me in the Hughes film.  It was officially yellow according to Google:

He also said he saw Oswald walking towards him down the Elm Street sidewalk about five minutes after the assassination.

You don’t think Oswald walked away from the TSBD a few minutes after?

[John Corbett]

Bob Jackson is 92 and living in Manitou Springs, Colorado. Why don’t you ask him yourself?  Ask him how well he remembers the spacing of the shots.

If he didn't recall the shooting correctly at the time it happened, what reason is there to think he would get it right almost 63 years later?

 Why is that a question?.

Because Roger Craig was a nutcase.

How does your speculation about what the shots sounded like prove anything?

It doesn't nor do the divergent recollections of the people you cited. Eye and ear witnesses don't prove anything unless you can corroborate their recollections are accurate. The Z-film would be a good place to start but that tells us a story different from the one you would rather believe.

His estimation of time is likely poor.

Yes it is, an indication of how badly witnesses can recall an event. If witnesses could reliably recall an event, there would be a clear consensus among the ones you cited but that is clearly the not the case. They vary greatly in their estimate of how closely spaced the last two shots were. But you think that because they all agreed that the last two shots were closer together than the first two, it somehow establishes that as a fact, even though there were other witnesses who said the shots were evenly spaced and still others who said the first two shots were closer together. None of these opinions prove anything except that relying heavily on witnesses is a poor way to determine what happened.

But even a first shot 9 or 10 seconds before the head shot, which is what you are suggesting, puts the second shot no earlier than z258 according to Sweatt.

So you cite one more unreliable witness to make your point. Why?

[Andrew Mason]

This clip does not represent an accurate sample of the witnesses. Witnesses are not perfect recorders of all details of events but they are generally quite accurate on details that most witnesses recalled.  But it is not 100%. The studies cited by Loftus in her book Eyewitness Testimony (1979) indicate that for highly salient details (details noticed by 50% or more of all the witnesses) the accuracy is over 95%. The mistakes are distributed randomly over all the potential mistakes.

Most witnesses recalled or gave their estimates of the number of shots.  Those who gave estimates, like "2 or 3" or "at least 4" should be treated differently than those who gave a definite number.  Almost all who gave a definite number said there were three shots. Here is the distribution that includes those who provided guesses or estimates:



For the shot spacing, the distribution looks like this:



For the witness distribution as to JFK's reaction or lack thereof to the first shot looks like this:



For the time of the first shot the distribution looks like this:



The statistical significance of these distributions should be readily apparent. And what is even more significant is that all the peaks are mutually corroborating.  Provided the witness evidence is independent the probability that any one of the peaks does not represent what really occurred is extremely small.  The probability that ALL the peaks are wrong is effectively zero.

The numbers are large enough that the possibility that the witnesses were colluding in some way so they are not independent becomes vanishingly small.  There is still a higher probability that all the witnesses colluded (as tiny as that would be) than the probability that the peaks represent errors.

Again, this has nothing to do with individual reliability or quality of the witnesses. It has to do with probability and statistics.

[John Corbett]

This clip does not represent an accurate sample of the witnesses. Witnesses are not perfect recorders of all details of events but they are generally quite accurate on details that most witnesses recalled.

Bs

 

But it is not 100%. The studies cited by Loftus in her book Eyewitness Testimony (1979) indicate that for highly salient details (details noticed by 50% or more of all the witnesses) the accuracy is over 95%. The mistakes are distributed randomly over all the potential mistakes.

It's not even good Bs.

Most witnesses recalled or gave their estimates of the number of shots.  Those who gave estimates, like "2 or 3" or "at least 4" should be treated differently than those who gave a definite number.  Almost all who gave a definite number said there were three shots. Here is the distribution that includes those who provided guesses or estimates:



For the shot spacing, the distribution looks like this:



For the witness distribution as to JFK's reaction or lack thereof to the first shot looks like this:



For the time of the first shot the distribution looks like this:



The statistical significance of these distributions should be readily apparent. And what is even more significant is that all the peaks are mutually corroborating.  Provided the witness evidence is independent the probability that any one of the peaks does not represent what really occurred is extremely small.  The probability that ALL the peaks are wrong is effectively zero.

It's just verbose Bs.

The numbers are large enough that the possibility that the witnesses were colluding in some way so they are not independent becomes vanishingly small.  There is still a higher probability that all the witnesses colluded (as tiny as that would be) than the probability that the peaks represent errors.

What percentage of witnesses said the shots came from the GK as opposed to the ones who thought they came from the TSBD?

Again, this has nothing to do with individual reliability or quality of the witnesses. It has to do with probability and statistics.

Do you know who believed in probability and statistics? The guy who drown in a lake with an average depth of 2 feet.

[Andrew Mason]

Bs
It's not even good Bs.
It's just verbose Bs.
What percentage of witnesses said the shots came from the GK as opposed to the ones who thought they came from the TSBD?
Do you know who believed in probability and statistics? The guy who drown in a lake with an average depth of 2 feet.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.  You just leave out the lis.

[John Corbett]

As they say, ignorance is bliss.  You just leave out the lis.

You must be the happiest person in the world.

[Tom Graves]

You must be the happiest person in the world.

He's ecstatic.