JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Bernd Werner on May 24, 2018, 10:55:16 PM ---The evidence are the 33 people (according to John McAdams) testifying that they heard shots from the grassy knoll. According to your interpretation of witness testimony this means, that there was a shooter at the grassy knoll!
--- End quote ---
No it doesn't. The quality of a witness observation is depends on the ability of a human to make the observation. Detecting gunshot sounds and the relative spacing is rather easy to do. Determining where the shots came from is much more difficult. Direction is determined by the brain sensing a time difference between the sound wave front reaching each ear. The sense of direction can be fooled by reflected sound. Dealey Plaza had many surfaces that reflected sound. So I would expect that some people would be confused as to the direction of the sound source. That confusion is reflected in the distribution of witness evidence.
Having said that, many more witnesses said the sound source was around the TSBD. According the the analysis of earwitness accounts by DM Green for the HSCA (at 8 HSCA 140), the distribution of 178 witnesses was:
TSBD: 49 (27.5%)
GK: 21 (11.8%)
Other: 30 (16.9%)
Unknown: 78 (43.8%)
--- Quote ---BTW, the book you quote actually supports my point of view on witness testimony, as it focusses on the fallability of such testimony. Quoting a part of the book and neglecting the rest is nothing else than quote mining!
--- End quote ---
Eyewitness identification evidence is problematic. Unless the witness recognized the person at the time of the event, eyewitness identification is really an opinion of a witness that the person being seen in a photograph or lineup is the same person that they saw earlier.
But, fact observation is fundamentally different. As the studies referred to by Loftus show, where a detail is recalled by most eyewitnesses, accuracy is quite high - around 98%. This makes perfect sense. Where you have many witnesses independently saying the same thing, it boggles the mind to suggest that they all independently made up the same fact!
Any given witness can be wrong. My point is that you do not have to know anything about and individual's reliability as a witness to determine that if 22+ people independently reported seeing a simple observable fact and 0 reported a different fact, you are making a big mistake if you find in favour of the fact that 0 people observed.
Bernd Werner:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on May 24, 2018, 11:47:02 PM ---Only if you make a lot of assumptions about contradictory accounts of the wound locations, the exact positions of the limo occupants, and the location of the shooter.
--- End quote ---
1. There are various photographs and x-rays, that can be used to find out the wound locations.
2. The position of the "limo occupants" can be established by photos and videos.
3. The location of the shooter can be established by aligning the entrance and exit wounds of JFk.
--- Quote ---But lots of things are possible. Can they show that it actually happened?
--- End quote ---
And how about you? Can you prove, that the single bullet didn't happen?
--- Quote ---And so what if it did? How does that get you to the identity of the shooter?
--- End quote ---
Quite easy, if you know the position of the shooter, you can search this place for further evidence and link it to the shooter.
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on May 25, 2018, 12:02:21 AM ---No it doesn't. The quality of a witness observation is depends on the ability of a human to make the observation.
--- End quote ---
But that contradicts your previous argument. Just to remind you, you stated:
--- Quote ---An individual witness can be wrong. But if multiple independent witnesses report consistent observations, on what basis can that evidence be disregarded?
--- End quote ---
It seems, that you are trying to move the goalpost.
--- Quote ---Detecting gunshot sounds and the relative spacing is rather easy to do.
--- End quote ---
Obviously not, as many witnesses (including Tague!) testified, that they thought the first shot was a firecracker or a backfire of one of the vehicles!
--- Quote ---Determining where the shots came from is much more difficult. Direction is determined by the brain sensing a time difference between the sound wave front reaching each ear. The sense of direction can be fooled by reflected sound. Dealey Plaza had many surfaces that reflected sound. So I would expect that some people would be confused as to the direction of the sound source. That confusion is reflected in the distribution of witness evidence.
--- End quote ---
While this is surely true (see Zapruders testimony [I do not classify him as an "knoll witness" because of this fact]), can you prove this for every witness?
--- Quote ---Having said that, many more witnesses said the sound source was around the TSBD.
--- End quote ---
This is of course true, but it is no contradiction to a shooter at the grassy knoll! The common argument is, that a further shooter was present at the grassy knoll and this proves a conspiracy (which is actually not true).
--- Quote ---But, fact observation is fundamentally different. As the studies referred to by Loftus show, where a detail is recalled by most eyewitnesses, accuracy is quite high - around 98%.
--- End quote ---
What part of her book are you referring to? Is it table 3.1? If so, did you know, that this table represents the results of a multiple choice test? Now tell me, which investigator uses multiple choice tests for his interrogations?
--- Quote ---Where you have many witnesses independently saying the same thing, it boggles the mind to suggest that they all independently made up the same fact!
--- End quote ---
I never claimed, that the witnesses made up this fact! You are just putting words in my mouth.You futhermore fell prey to the "argumentum ad populum fallacy". Just because a lot of people said, that something occured, doesn't necessarily mean, that something occured. You have to confirm this accounts by actual facts.
--- Quote ---Any given witness can be wrong. My point is that you do not have to know anything about and individual's reliability as a witness to determine that if 22+ people independently reported seeing a simple observable fact and 0 reported a different fact, you are making a big mistake if you find in favour of the fact that 0 people observed.
--- End quote ---
Well, to the best of my knowledge no witness ever observed, that a bullet fragmented, therefore it didn't happen (according to YOUR logic).
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Bernd Werner on May 25, 2018, 12:08:32 AM ---1. There are various photographs and x-rays, that can be used to find out the wound locations.
--- End quote ---
You would think so, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, different panels examining the same materials couldn't even agree on where the entry wound in the head was located.
--- Quote ---2. The position of the "limo occupants" can be established by photos and videos.
--- End quote ---
Somewhat. Unless the areas of interest are not visible in the photos and videos. And there's the problem of interpolating 3D position from a 2D image.
--- Quote ---3. The location of the shooter can be established by aligning the entrance and exit wounds of JFk.
--- End quote ---
Assuming you can figure out where those are, IF they are entries or exits, and didn't deflect much in transit. Then you can only get direction, not distance. And there's even a margin of error on direction.
--- Quote ---And how about you? Can you prove, that the single bullet didn't happen?
--- End quote ---
Did I miss your proof that it did happen? I don't know if it happened or not. Or even how that helps us determine who did the shooting.
--- Quote ---Quite easy, if you know the position of the shooter, you can search this place for further evidence and link it to the shooter.
--- End quote ---
Be my guest.
Bill Chapman:
--- Quote from: Jim Brunsman on May 12, 2018, 08:56:48 PM ---Nice try, but several witnesses reported the second and third shots as a "bam-bam" and stressed they were "very close together" (Lee Bowers, et al). If Oswald or any other human was operating the "humanitarian rifle", they would have to cycle the bolt after the second shot and reacquire the target AND fire accurately. Can anyone honestly say that there's such a thing as two shots "very close together" from a bolt action rifle? I think not...
I started this thread knowing there would be many who would concoct scenarios to fit the discredited SBT. But the extent to which folks twist the evidence reminds me of trying to have an intelligent discussion with a Trump supporter. I will state it again because I'm an ineffective communicator. The single bullet theory is impossible because no shots exited from the front of the president's body. Several witnesses saw the president before the SBT could be fabricated. They report the throat wound as one of entrance. End of ballgame for SBT, just from a different direction!
--- End quote ---
I read that HSCA testing showed the rifle could be fired twice in 1.67 seconds. The catch is that the second one of the two shots missed; only the first could be aimed precisely. I would contend that even just pointing at the target still leaves open the possibility that the shooter could have scored the headshot due to pure dumb luck.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version