JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dillon Rankine on January 13, 2018, 08:26:14 PM
-
CTs frequently cite the fact that most witnesses thought the final two shots were simultaneous and that they came from the grassy knoll as evidence of a conspiracy whilst failing to accurately utilise this reliance in their plus 3 shot theories of multiple gunmen. In Josiah Thompson?s study of the eyewitnesses, be quantified four categories of perception:
[Note: ?Sample? refers to number of witnesses who made explicit comments on subject. Those who were completely uncertain were excluded. ]
NUMBER OF SHOTS:
Sample: 172
136 said THREE
12 said TWO
10 said TWO OR THREE
6 said FOUR
5 said THREE OR FOUR
3 said MORE THAN FOUR
TIME SPAN OF SHOTS:
Sample: 29
20 said FOUR TO SIX SECONDS
9 said MORE THAN SIX SECONDS
(1976, p. 28)
SPACING OF SHOTS:
Sample: 65
40 said FINAL TWO BUNCHED
13 said EVENLY SPACED
7 said FIRST TWO BUNCHED
5 said FIRST TWO AND FINAL TWO WERE BUNCHED (4 shots)
SOURCE OF SHOTS:
Sample: 64
33 said KNOLL
25 said TSBD
4 said TWO DIRECTIONS
2 said EAST SIDE OF HOUSTON STREET (near Records Building)
(Ibid., p. 29)
Taking witnesses totally at their word and by majority, then the scenario we get is somewhat ludicrous: 3 shots from the grassy knoll in about 5 seconds with the last two being bunched?most CTs don?t take this seriously!
Most CTs believe in over 4 shots and usually 3 gunmen, yet the witness data upon which such speculation relies fails to support this conjecture. Even when considering the location effect among witnesses (location in plaza predicts perception of shot origin: east side = TSBD, West = Knoll), this highlights a classic failure in all conspiratorial cognition.
In the cogntive sciences, a monological belief system is one where a view is self-supported by mutually dependant beliefs. As it happens, the mutal dependance of beliefs in conspiracy theories needn?t have anything to do with the specific content of beliefs, but rather with the fact that the beliefs all hold that a conspiracy or cover-up took place.
Wood, Douglas, and Sutton in a 2011 paper for the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science published results showing that the more one believes that Princess Diana faked her death, the more one believed that she was murdered?ditto for Osama Bin Laden. The more one thought he?d been dead before 9/11, the more likely it was that one also excepted that he was still alive. (See here: http://images.derstandard.at/2012/02/22/dead%20and%20alive.pdf (http://images.derstandard.at/2012/02/22/dead%20and%20alive.pdf)) The commonality among the explanations are that the whole truth is being covered up??they?re not telling us something.? Neuroimaging experiments demonstrate that brain regions active when accepting or rejecting beliefs are those involved in emotion, not cognition. (See Harris, et al. 2008: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.21301/abstract;jsessionid=7554F2FD5454ED772C20779A7B941AB6.f01t03 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.21301/abstract;jsessionid=7554F2FD5454ED772C20779A7B941AB6.f01t03))
Another example of this contradiction are the usage of medical experts like Gary Anguilar and Cyril Wecht. Both believe in a conspiracy on the basis of the medical evidence, as they hold that such evidence is authentic. Yet they are routinely cited by those making claims of medical forgery. The acoustics evidence which posits five shots are specific intervals is also cited by those making upwards of 5 shot claims and at any point they wish. The scientific evidence suggests that such content-ignorant usage of evidence has to do with the fact the evidence suggests conspiracy.
-
"CTs frequently cite the fact that most witnesses thought the final two shots were simultaneous and that they came from the grassy knoll as evidence of a conspiracy..."
Dillon,
Maybe I missed something. I'm not aware of any witness who testified that they heard two shots that were "closely spaced", or "bunched together", or "simultaneous" say that both of them came from the area of the grassy knoll.
Whose testimony are you referencing?
Steve Thomas
-
Dillon,
Maybe I missed something. I'm not aware of any witness who testified that they heard two shots that were "closely spaced", or "bunched together", or "simultaneous" say that both of them came from the area of the grassy knoll.
Whose testimony are you referencing?
Steve Thomas
It?s no specific witness account. The point I was making was that if one is so convinced of the accuracy of witness evidence by the strength of its number (as CTs are with the origin of shots and spacing of shots) then why not be totally honest and use all the witness evidence: the majority?more than the amount who identified the knoll or bunched final shots combined?said there were three shots. They also remained confident in the one origin they isolated as being the only origin. They also thought the shots took about 5 seconds from start to finish.
Most CTs accounts of the shooting go above and beyond what the witness data they mostly rely on permits, and this is he contradiction I was highlighting.
-
It?s no specific witness account. The point I was making was that if one is so convinced of the accuracy of witness evidence by the strength of its number (as CTs are with the origin of shots and spacing of shots) then why not be totally honest and use all the witness evidence: the majority?more than the amount who identified the knoll or bunched final shots combined?said there were three shots. They also remained confident in the one origin they isolated as being the only origin. They also thought the shots took about 5 seconds from start to finish.
Most CTs accounts of the shooting go above and beyond what the witness data they mostly rely on permits, and this is he contradiction I was highlighting.
Most witnesses heard three EXPLOSIONS.....and the first explosion sounded different than the two following explosions.
Many witnesses described the first explosion as a firecracker or motorcycle backfire.....
-
Most witnesses heard three EXPLOSIONS.....and the first explosion sounded different than the two following explosions.
Many witnesses described the first explosion as a firecracker or motorcycle backfire.....
Walt,
I have often thought that the first shot was from a .22. I live in the country and every fall the people around me are sighting in their rifles in prep for hunting season. You can definitely tell the difference between a .22 and something else like a 30.06 or a 30/30.
Steve Thomas
-
Most witnesses heard three EXPLOSIONS.....and the first explosion sounded different than the two following explosions.
Many witnesses described the first explosion as a firecracker or motorcycle backfire.....
I?m not sure if it was most, but yes, many witnesses remarked the first noise was almost like a firecracker. But the point of this post is that if the number of witnesses making a claim is reason to include it in a theory, then why not use the total number of 3 shots, the one origin of shots, etc?
At which point should we care that the majority of witnesses said X? Because the CTs largely rely on evidence whose total content they ignore.
-
I?m not sure if it was most, but yes, many witnesses remarked the first noise was almost like a firecracker. But the point of this post is that if the number of witnesses making a claim is reason to include it in a theory, then why not use the total number of 3 shots, the one origin of shots, etc?
At which point should we care that the majority of witnesses said X? Because the CTs largely rely on evidence whose total content they ignore.
Didn't some of those witnesses say they initially thought the first report was a "firecracker" or "backfire", but as they continued to hear further shots, they figured all the reports were gunshots?
Meaning their first impression was that the loud report was something innocent and incidental, but upon hearing more such reports, it dawned on them that it was something intentional and sinister.
-
Also, from:
http://www.jfk-info.com/palam1.htm
we see that the majority of the witnesses said the limousine stopped or almost stopped.
So, being guided by what the majority of the witnesses claims:
** 3 shots were fired
** The final two shots were bunched together
** Based on what the majority of the witnesses heard, the shots came from the front (actually, a fairer count indicates a close majority thought the shots came from rear)
** Based on what the majority of the witnesses who saw a rifle apparently being aimed, the shots came from the rear
** The limousine stopped or almost stopped
** While the limousine was stopped or almost stopped, Clint Hill was barely able to catch up with and get on the back of the limousine
And, not stopping there, since we have thousands to witnesses to back it up, we can conclude that:
** A population of Bigfoots are hiding out in 49 of the 50 states.
-
Is anyone going to mention 'echo effect' at some point?
-
Is anyone going to mention 'echo effect' at some point?
There are multiple ways a single shot can result in more than one noise.
** Echoes.
** The ?Crack? of the supersonic bullet, generally followed by the ?Thump? from the muzzle blast.
** The sound of a bullet or bullet fragment hitting bone, glass or metal.
Meaning that, even in cases where no two shots actually occurred right on top of each other, it should be common for witnesses to report that, by sheer coincidence, two shots occurred almost simultaneously. This is something we should expect.
Witnesses are prone to report phantom pairs of shots. This may be more common with the last shot, possibly due to the longer range of the last shot, or people remembering the shots better once they realized that the noises were gunshots.
Addendum:
I assume there were no large buildings around the shooting site of this video which would provide better surfaces for the muzzle blast to bounce off of, unlike Dealey Plaza. Even so, echoes are still noticeable.
-
Walt,
I have often thought that the first shot was from a .22. I live in the country and every fall the people around me are sighting in their rifles in prep for hunting season. You can definitely tell the difference between a .22 and something else like a 30.06 or a 30/30.
Steve Thomas
Harold Norman said one of the shots (the first I think) shook the entire building. Another employee downstairs said that, or something similar, as well.
The following firing sequence shows that the reports sometimes vary in loudness, it seems to me. Listen carefully throughout the entire video., especially after the first sequence (I didn't notice any report differential there).
-
I?m not sure if it was most, but yes, many witnesses remarked the first noise was almost like a firecracker. But the point of this post is that if the number of witnesses making a claim is reason to include it in a theory, then why not use the total number of 3 shots, the one origin of shots, etc?
Because most of the witnesses were interviewed long after the "3 shots" narrative was firmly established and media saturated.
-
There are multiple ways a single shot can result in more than one noise.
Then the fact that most witnesses thought they heard 3 shots is meaningless anyway, right?
-
It?s no specific witness account. The point I was making was that if one is so convinced of the accuracy of witness evidence by the strength of its number (as CTs are with the origin of shots and spacing of shots) then why not be totally honest and use all the witness evidence: the majority?more than the amount who identified the knoll or bunched final shots combined?said there were three shots. They also remained confident in the one origin they isolated as being the only origin. They also thought the shots took about 5 seconds from start to finish.
Most CTs accounts of the shooting go above and beyond what the witness data they mostly rely on permits, and this is he contradiction I was highlighting.
Well.....I quoted the 2 original witnesses in my video and the account they gave was from their original testimonies - I believe 3 shots and a firecracker for distraction to get people looking in another direction when the President was struck in the throat with the first shot. Governor Connally's original testimony reported 3 and Malcom Summers reported 3 and the grouping with the last 2 coming close together - definitely not a bolt action rifle.
Zapruder film shows 3 shots, 2 through windshield and one behind the sign. No other visible shots present! You must look at original accounts to get the truth. All later testimonies were altered after hearing other facts and "adlib" ing to their stories - either accidentally or to match the storyline's narrative. YOU MUST LOOK at the oldest and most original narrative and go from there. Accept something like the Zapruder film and then make all narrative match what you see - not what someone else tells you years later!
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,101.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,101.0.html)
-
Well.....I quoted the 2 original witnesses in my video and the account they gave was from their original testimonies - I believe 3 shots and a firecracker for distraction to get people looking in another direction when the President was struck in the throat with the first shot. Governor Connally's original testimony reported 3 and Malcom Summers reported 3 and the grouping with the last 2 coming close together - definitely not a bolt action rifle.
Zapruder film shows 3 shots, 2 through windshield and one behind the sign. No other visible shots present! You must look at original accounts to get the truth. All later testimonies were altered after hearing other facts and "adlib" ing to their stories - either accidentally or to match the storyline's narrative. YOU MUST LOOK at the oldest and most original narrative and go from there. Accept something like the Zapruder film and then make all narrative match what you see - not what someone else tells you years later!
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,101.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,101.0.html)
Malcom Summers reported 3 and the grouping with the last 2 coming close together - definitely not a bolt action rifle.
the last 2 coming close together - definitely not a bolt action rifle.
There's not a person in the world who can accurately fire two shots from a standard Mannlicher Carcano in a manner that the two shots sound almost as one shot. Anybody who has operated the bolt of a carcano knows that this is a fact.
-
Governor Connally's original testimony reported 3 ....
J B Connally's original testimony [when he was shot] was actually "Oh God no no no they're going to kill us all."
Why did he say that?
-
Mr. SPECTER. Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.
Does that make any sense?
Governor CONNALLY. .... Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.
Why... [if he only heard 2 shots] would Connally say that?
-
Because most of the witnesses were interviewed long after the "3 shots" narrative was firmly established and media saturated.
John. If the shots all originated from the same place, and the same rifle, then all shots would have sounded pretty much alike..... A large percentage of the ear witnesses said that the first shot sounded different than the following shots......That first Boom was probably the signal to the shooters to open fire.....And I believe it was a firecracker. I also believe that one of the shooters was using a silencer equipped weapon.
-
The thread is Conspiracist Contradictions.
J B Connally insisted until he died that he was not struck by the same bullet as the president.
However he said that he fully supported the conclusions of the Warren Report.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/12/opinion/l-connally-too-rejected-single-bullet-idea-017493.html
That would be in itself a totally outrageous contradiction.
-
Didn't some of those witnesses say they initially thought the first report was a "firecracker" or "backfire", but as they continued to hear further shots, they figured all the reports were gunshots?
Meaning their first impression was that the loud report was something innocent and incidental, but upon hearing more such reports, it dawned on them that it was something intentional and sinister.
Precisely... "Detective Cannon".