JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on February 07, 2018, 02:34:39 AM
-
How Good Are People at Counting?
Before reading any further, first watch the following video:
Well, it probably did no good, since most readers are already aware of it. But it was worth a try for those few who might not have known of it.
What this illustrates, to me, is how poor distracted witnesses are at making observations.
Distract them by asking them to count the passes made by the white players and they can miss obvious things. Like a man dressed as a gorilla walking amidst the players. They are good at counting the passes but not good at observing other things.
Note, it does no good to look for a majority consensus. Show it one person and they most likely won?t see the gorilla. Show it to one hundred people and the majority will not see the gorilla. Show it to one thousand people and the majority will not see the gorilla.
This shows the fallacy of using a majority consensus to determine if the limousine was stopped or at least almost stopped. Or on the spacing of the shots.
One may say, this is unfair. The witnesses to this video were distracted. They were told to count the number of passes. Without these instructions, they would have seen the gorilla. This is true. But the Dealey Plaza witnesses were heavily distracted. They were concentrating on their rare, perhaps unique chance, to see a President and the First Lady up close. A particularly glamourous President and First Lady at that.
Witnesses are good at counting basketball passes, when instructed to count basketball passes. And good at counting shots, when instructed to count the number and spacing of shots. Well, at least if the shot only makes one noise, but not a ?Crack-Thump?. But not good when focusing on something else.
The witnesses may become undistracted. When they realize shots are being fired. But that may happen at different times for different witnesses. It likely happened, for most, just after the bloody and fatal shot at z312. This may cause them to remember the details of the last shot the best of all, a ?Crack-Thump?. Causing a lot of ?There was a pair of shots at the end, almost together?. And missing that detail in the earlier shots, while they were distracted.
An interesting article on this video is below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Bloom-t.html
-
What this illustrates, to me, is how poor distracted witnesses are at making observations.
I'm glad that you concede this. Now given that illustration, explain why you think there were exactly 3 shots. Then explain why you think Oswald was the one who shot Tippit.
-
What this illustrates, to me, is how poor distracted witnesses are at making observations.
I'm glad that you concede this.
Concede?
Now given that illustration, explain why you think there were exactly 3 shots.
Three shells were found in the sniper?s nest. The three most likely explanations are:
1. Oswald left a shell in the rifle, from the last time he fired the rifle in practice. This shell was ejected on November 22, but was actually fired several months earlier.
2. Oswald left an extra shell on the floor to create a mystery.
3. Oswald fired three shots.
Possibility 1 and 2 seem unlikely to me. So, it was probably 3 shots.
The three-shot scenario is best supported by the jiggle analysis. You like to poohbah the jiggle analysis. But there were clearly fairly loud gunshots fired. And loud gunshots will cause people to jiggle the camera. It is actually unbelievable that these gunshots would not cause Mr. Zapruder to jiggle the camera.
Real life tests show that there are two things that can cause the camera to jiggle in a certain way. Loud noises. And the object being filmed passing behind another object in the foreground.
Of the seven strongest camera jiggles before z324, four were associated with the President passing behind a sign. But the other three are associated with z153, z222 and z312.
Also, each succeeding camera jiggle, of these three, is stronger than the last. This is to be expected as the rifle gets pointed closer and closer to Mr. Zapruder?s general direction. Each shot would sound louder than the previous one. The odds of this happening, by sheer luck, are one in six.
Also, each of these three hypnotical shots have things associated with them which we can see in the Zapruder film:
** z153:
In the z160?s, Connally turning to his right, far enough to glance behind (but not far enough to see the President), just as he testified.
In the z160?s, JFK turning to his right, possibly looking behind and to his right with his eyes.
Rosemary Willis, the ten-year-old girl, who stops running, and starts staring at the base of the TSBD.
** z222:
** Connally?s coat moves suddenly at z223-z224. Corresponding exactly to a shot at z222, as the Dr. Lattimer tests of the 1970?s show.
** Connally and JFK showing obvious signs of being wounded in the z220?s, both suddenly move up their right arm during z225-z226.
** z312:
Of course, the President?s head exploding, sending debris mostly up and forward.
All and all, an over 99 % chance for a shot at z312, a 98 % chance of a shot around z222 and at least an 80 % chance of a shot around z153.
Then explain why you think Oswald was the one who shot Tippit.
Shells being found at the crime scene matching the gun he was carrying when arrested.
Why was he found within a half hour of the Officer Tippit murder within a half mile of that murder scene?
Why did he duck into a shoe store just when the police drove by?
Why did he duck into a theater a minute later as the police drove by again?
Why was he found in the theater carrying a gun?
Why did he slug and try to shoot the first policeman who approached him in the theater?
One of most effected ways of convincing me that a man murdered a policeman is for him to be found within a half hour, within a half mile of that murder, carrying a concealed handgun, and trying to slug and shoot the first officer who approaches him. And who has just immediately left the scene of another murder about an hour earlier.
How does one top that?
-
I think it's the third time the gorilla example has been posted on the forum....I could be wrong.....how did I go?
-
I think it's the third time the gorilla example has been posted on the forum....I could be wrong.....how did I go?
Third time or tenth time. What does it matter?
What does this video tell us about relying on distracted witnesses?
What does this video tell us about relying on conclusions that ?64 % of the witnesses who expressed an opinion said . . .? of distracted witnesses?
Are not people trying to count the number of times a basketball is passed distracted witnesses? Are not people who have taken the trouble to drive, or at least walk and wait, for a few seconds of seeing the President and First Lady up close, distracted witnesses?
Is it really wise to trust the consensus of distracted witnesses? That the shots were in a certain pattern? That they noticed nothing out of the ordinary as the players passed the ball?
-
Third time or tenth time. What does it matter?
What does this video tell us about relying on distracted witnesses?
What does this video tell us about relying on conclusions that ?64 % of the witnesses who expressed an opinion said . . .? of distracted witnesses?
Are not people trying to count the number of times a basketball is passed distracted witnesses? Are not people who have taken the trouble to drive, or at least walk and wait, for a few seconds of seeing the President and First Lady up close, distracted witnesses?
Is it really wise to trust the consensus of distracted witnesses? That the shots were in a certain pattern? That they noticed nothing out of the ordinary as the players passed the ball?
Take a chill pill Joe, was just answering your thread question. ;D
-
I concentrated on the gorilla and didn?t see anyone throw a basketball.....
You think those first in the SN were concentrating on the chicken lunch there and couldn?t see the long bag. Then later when a bag appeared they didn?t notice the chicken bones had placed themselves in a bag and jumped 25 feet.
-
Concede?
Yes. It seems you are only willing to use the distracted witness excuse when witnesses say things you don't like.
Three shells were found in the sniper?s nest. The three most likely explanations are:
1. Oswald left a shell in the rifle, from the last time he fired the rifle in practice. This shell was ejected on November 22, but was actually fired several months earlier.
2. Oswald left an extra shell on the floor to create a mystery.
3. Oswald fired three shots.
Possibility 1 and 2 seem unlikely to me. So, it was probably 3 shots.
There you go again. "Most likely", "unlikely". Based on what? For one thing all of your options assume Oswald was responsible for the shells being there. Then you assume that these shells created the shots that witnesses heard. All without any evidence. But that aside, why does it "seem unlikely" that an empty shell was ejected before shots were fired? Just because you've already decided that there were 3 shots because jiggles? That would be a circular argument.
The three-shot scenario is best supported by the jiggle analysis. You like to poohbah the jiggle analysis. But there were clearly fairly loud gunshots fired. And loud gunshots will cause people to jiggle the camera. It is actually unbelievable that these gunshots would not cause Mr. Zapruder to jiggle the camera.
I'm not poobahing jiggle analysis. But how do you get from 13 or so jiggles to exactly 3 shots without handwaving and circular arguments. In particular, what about the jiggle at Z293 which was just as strong as your Z153 jiggle? You keep avoiding this question, but it's not going away.
Shells being found at the crime scene matching the gun he was carrying when arrested.
Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested. And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?
Why was he found within a half hour of the Officer Tippit murder within a half mile of that murder scene?
This is reason? A whole lot of people were "within a half mile of that murder scene".
Why did he duck into a shoe store just when the police drove by?
That's just your assumption.
Why did he duck into a theater a minute later as the police drove by again?
Well, given that nobody actually saw him duck into a theater, that would seem to be an assumption too.
Why was he found in the theater carrying a gun?
Even that has very little evidentiary basis. Basically you have to rely on McDonald who was known to embellish his role in the events of the day. You know, one of those unreliable witnesses you've been talking about. But let's assume that Oswald did have a gun in the theater. This proves that he shot a cop...how exactly?
Why did he slug and try to shoot the first policeman who approached him in the theater?
Loaded question. Why did you beat your wife? There is ZERO evidence that he tried to shoot anybody. NONE.
How does one top that?
By actually basing your beliefs on evidence, not assumptions and handwaving.
-
Everyone is dodging the main point of this thread.
Can we use majority opinions, ?64% of the witnesses saw such and such? to reliably establish what happened?
Did the limousine stop, slow down or maintain it?s speed?
How many shots were there?
How were the shots spaced?
Did anything unusual happen during the basketball practice?
This question is especially focused on distracted witnesses. Witnesses concentrating on their few seconds near the President and First Lady. Witnesses trying to count the number of basketball practices.
Are these witnesses reliable?
Yes or No.
And if ?Yes?, try to justify your opinion.
-
Two shots together
Extant z313 + .715 sec later/4.2ft farther west down Elm St.
13.1 Zframes - Rounded to 14 whole frames
Limo speed 3.74mph
Did it stop completely, we'll never know.
Kinney was not distracted.
"At this time I glanced from the taillights of the President's car, that I use for gauging distances for driving. I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with his right hand. There was a second of pause and then two more shots were heard. Agent Clinton Hill jumped from the follow-up car and dashed to the aid of the President and First Lady in the President's car. I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy. At this time I stepped on the siren and gas pedal at the same time. Agent Greer driving the President's car did the same."
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4701/39991729802_b13d3cf1cb_z.jpg)
-
How many were expecting to see a paper gun bag.
If you are then you will realize why the experiment fails to explain the phenomena of 12 people not seeing CE 142 in the SE corner.
Show us where all 12 missed the bag, Six out of 12 is more accurate, thus matching the 50% average found in IB science
And where do you get the idea that all 12 missed the bag?
"Twelve officers, all of whom had been on the sixth floor of the Depository, were questioned by the Warren Commission on whether they saw a long paper bag. Conspiracy authors point out that SIX of the officers stated they had not seen the bag. But the other six said they had."*
Cite>McAdams
*Take note, lurkers
It is to do with the "when" Bill. Most of the early guys saw a lunch bag.....so bag doesn?t seem to be an issue.
In any event...Montgomery later recounted that he found the bag folded and tucked between boxes not in the corner. That explains why the early guys didn?t see it. Question is, why did those that claimed to have seen it on the sixth floor place it in the corner when it clearly wasn?t initially.....oh what a tangled web.
-
I was the one who brought up IB science a few months ago. You don't remember? My point is why are you?seemingly?so incurious about scientifically proven phenomena.
Because a gorilla walking through a basketball game with intentionally distracted viewers is nothing like a bag on the floor of a crime scene where law enforcement officers are specifically examining the scene for evidence.
-
Everyone is dodging the main point of this thread.
Can we use majority opinions, ?64% of the witnesses saw such and such? to reliably establish what happened?
Did the limousine stop, slow down or maintain it?s speed?
How many shots were there?
How were the shots spaced?
Did anything unusual happen during the basketball practice?
This question is especially focused on distracted witnesses. Witnesses concentrating on their few seconds near the President and First Lady. Witnesses trying to count the number of basketball practices.
Are these witnesses reliable?
Yes or No.
And if ?Yes?, try to justify your opinion.
This question is especially focused on distracted witnesses. Witnesses concentrating on their few seconds near the President and First Lady. Witnesses trying to count the number of basketball practices.
Or witnesses distracted by a gunned down police officer..... is that what you mean?
-
How Good Are People at Counting?
Before reading any further, first watch the following video:
Well, it probably did no good, since most readers are already aware of it. But it was worth a try for those few who might not have known of it.
What this illustrates, to me, is how poor distracted witnesses are at making observations.
No one argues that every witness is a good observer. We do not even have to assume that most witnesses are good observers. (Although, controlled studies of human behaviour indicate that the majority of witnesses are correct when reporting details of highly salient facts- facts that were recalled by most of the witnesses). Rather, it is about the statistical significance of the observations of witnesses who independently report having made a particular observation.
If I had not seen the video and I asked 100 people who had watched the video (alone and without being exposed to anyone else's reaction) to independently (ie. without discussing it with any other witness) tell me what they saw and if only 5 people told me they saw a person dressed as a gorilla walk through and 95 failed to notice anything unusual, I could still very reliably conclude that a person dressed as a gorilla walked through. That is so highly statistically significant that it leaves no room for any other conclusion. The gorilla observations are reliable because the alternative is the 5 people all, independently, had the same strange hallucination. A witness would have to make up the "gorilla" story. If another wanted to make up a story as well, the chance that that person would independently choose to make up the same story is very small (one could say it was zero, since there are an infinite number of things a person can make up). If another 3 reported observing the same thing, independently, that makes it even more of certainty. The key is "independence". If only one person reported seeing a gorilla, I could draw no conclusion because I have no independent corroboration - no way to determine whether that person has a vision problem or some kind of mental issue or is simply lying.
In the JFK assassination, the majority of witnesses did not observe what JFK did in response to the first shot. We ignore the lack of observations because the lack of observations are not independent events - they were either not looking at the president or, if they were, could not recall what he did. We pay attention to those who did make an observation of what he did in response to the first shot. As far as I can tell, with the possible exception of Mary Woodward (possibly, because she gave evidence that the last two shots were close together, which conflicts with JFK not being hit by the first shot) all witnesses who reported seeing JFK at the time of the first shot observed an unusual kind of reaction. There were at least 20 such witnesses. No witness who observed JFK's reaction said that he continued to smile and/or wave afterward, let alone for 3 seconds afterward. If only half of those observations were independent, I could confidently conclude that JFK reacted in an odd way to the first shot, similar to what is seen in the zfilm after JFK is struck in the neck/back. We can, therefore, reliably conclude that JFK was struck in the neck/back on the first shot.
This shows the fallacy of using a majority consensus to determine if the limousine was stopped or at least almost stopped. Or on the spacing of the shots.
No it doesn't. You would not be comfortable concluding from the 5 "gorilla" witnesses that there was a "gorilla". I would. I would be right. You would be wrong.
Witnesses are good at counting basketball passes, when instructed to count basketball passes. And good at counting shots, when instructed to count the number and spacing of shots. Well, at least if the shot only makes one noise, but not a ?Crack-Thump?. But not good when focusing on something else.
Who says they have to be trying to count shots? Recalling three shots, particularly when they form a pattern, does not require conscious counting. The memory of hearing a loud noise a pause of several seconds and then two more "in rapid succession" can be recalled relatively easily afterward. Counting 15 passes in that video cannot. You cannot use the video to say that the witnesses as a whole cannot be relied on as to the number and pattern of three shots, particularly when that number and pattern is the only one that fits with other bodies of independent evidence.
-
Or witnesses distracted by a gunned down police officer..... is that what you mean?
That's totally different, because Joe thinks Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.
-
The problem is that there are really no "independent" witnesses in this case. Witness memories are highly susceptible to being altered by authority figures, what other witnesses say, or what they see in the media.
-
The problem is that there are really no "independent" witnesses in this case. Witness memories are highly susceptible to being altered by authority figures, what other witnesses say, or what they see in the media.
This dovetails completely with my argument that the bulk of Tippit witnesses all picking the same man in a line up is highly - let's say - irregular.
There must be something in the water in Oak Cliff that enables all these people to do what - as the video shows - the rest of us can not do.
-
This dovetails completely with my argument that the bulk of Tippit witnesses all picking the same man in a line up is highly - let's say - irregular.
There must be something in the water in Oak Cliff that enables all these people to do what - as the video shows - the rest of us can not do.
It's just the usual LN special pleading, Martin. Eyewitnesses are unreliable, except when they're not.
-
Because a gorilla walking through a basketball game with intentionally distracted viewers is nothing like a bag on the floor of a crime scene where law enforcement officers are specifically examining the scene for evidence.
Yeah, Law enforcement officers who were focused on locating evidence associated with a rifle crime.
Besides Oswald carrying his rifle to the crime scene in a brown paper bag, is there any other evidence in the history of the world where a brown paper bag was employed to carry a rifle to a murder and then left at the scene?
So overlooking a brown paper bag in a busy warehouse isn't very surprising.
JohnM
-
That's totally different, because Joe thinks Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.
JohnM
-
No one argues that every witness is a good observer. We do not even have to assume thaten that the majority of witnesses are good observers. They may or may not be. Rather, it is about the statistical significance of the observations of witnesses who independently report having made a particular observation.
If I had not seen the video and I asked 100 people who had watched the video (alone and without being exposed to anyone else's reaction) to independently (ie. without discussing it with any other witness) tell me what they saw and if only 5 people told me they saw a person dressed as a gorilla walk through and 95 failed to notice anything unusual, I could still very reliably conclude that a person dressed as a gorilla walked through. That is so highly statistically significant that it leaves no room for any other conclusion. The gorilla observations are reliable because the alternative is the 5 people all, independently, had the same strange hallucination. A witness would have to make up the "gorilla" story. If another wanted to make up a story as well, the chance that that person would independently choose to make up the same story is very small (one could say it was zero, since there are an infinite number of things a person can make up). If another 3 reported observing the same thing, independently, that makes it even more of certainty. The key is "independence". If only one person reported seeing a gorilla, I could draw no conclusion because I have no independent corroboration - no way to determine whether that person has a vision problem or some kind of mental issue or is simply lying.
In the JFK assassination, the majority of witnesses did not observe what JFK did in response to the first shot. We ignore the lack of observations because the lack of observations are not independent events - they were either not looking at the president or, if they were, could not recall what he did. We pay attention to those who did make an observation of what he did in response to the first shot. As far as I can tell, with the possible exception of Mary Woodward (possibly, because she gave evidence that the last two shots were close together, which conflicts with JFK not being hit by the first shot) all witnesses who reported seeing JFK at the time of the first shot observed an unusual kind of reaction. There were at least 20 such witnesses. No witness who observed JFK's reaction said that he continued to smile and/or wave afterward, let alone for 3 seconds afterward.
But how many witnesses could see clearly the President's face or much of his right hand?
In your paper, you state:
"At least 16 witnesses recalled that the President reacted
to the first shot by leaning left and bringing his hands to
his neck. (footnote) From frame 167 to frame 198 of the
Zapruder film the President and First Lady turned to their
right to smile and wave at the crowd. No one said that the
smiling and waving occurred after the first shot."
From your footnote:
- T.E. Moore (could not see the President's face and not much of his raided right hand;
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/firstshot/t-e-moore-first-shot.png)
Moore's "slumping forward" could be head nod in the Z170s as seen from behind.)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/leanforwardz170s.png) - Nellie Connally, whom you quote: "I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck." How can Nellie be reacting to a first shot at Z192ish if she doesn't see the President until he has his hands at his neck area? That's nearly two full seconds before she sees Kennedy if she heard a shot at Z192.
- David Powers (can't see the President's face and maybe not his right hand)
- Gayle Newman
- William Newman, whom you quote: "The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up." ("Jumped up in his seat" and "he had realized like it" seems like the President was startled, not wounded.)
- John Chism (shot you referenced occurred before the last shot)
- Faye Chism (shot you referenced occurred before the last shot)
- James Altgens, whom you state: "He said his z255 shot was after first shot and before any other." (But his testimony shows he was really only sure of two shots, but when pressed, he placed a shot between the two shots he was sure of.)
- Abraham Zapruder (from the quote you provide, he could be be talking about the Z223 shot)
- Clint Hill (even you acknowledge he only recalled two shots; Hill's "slump" shot could have occurred before the last shot.)
- Linda Willis (she wouldn't see the President "grab his throat" and her view to the President at Z223 was probably blocked; more likely she saw the President when she had a view of him earlier -- "kind of slumped forward" could be the Z170s head nod as seen from behind.)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/linda-view-z162-z198.jpg) - George Hickey (can't see the President's face; Hickey claims 2 to 3 seconds passed before he saw the President "slump"; three seconds before Z223 is Z168.)
- Sam Kinney (can't see the President's face; Kinney's statement "I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with his right hand" could be the Z170s head nod and subsequent right hand lowering as seen from behind.)
- Paul Landis, whom you quote: "I saw him moving in a manner which I thought was to look in the direction of the sound." (Doesn't sound like a witness for leaning leftward nor bringing his hands to his neck. Also can't see the President's face.)
- Cecil Ault, whom you describe with:
"Viewing from court house on Houston. Reported to
have seen JFK rise up in his seat after first shot."
(But Ault's full comment "Following the first shot Mr. AULT noted that President KENNEDY appeared to raise up in his seat in the Presidential automobile and after the second shot the President slumped into his seat" has the President slumping on the second shot.) - Harold Norman ("slumped or something" could just well be the Z170s head nod or Kennedy brushing his hair in the Z150s.)
That's 16 ...
- Malcolm Summers (shot you referenced occurred before the last shot)
- Mary Moorman, whom you quote: "As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over." (Can't quite link her taking her picture as the first shot occurred.)
- Jean Newman (shot you referencef occurred before the last shot)
- Charles Brehm (shot you referenced occurred before the last shot)
- Pierce Allman, whom you quote: "the President was ducking from the first shot." (Couldn't see the President's face nor much of the right hand; could be head nod in Z170s as seen from behind.)
BTW, several of your first-shot "slump" witnesses thought the first two shots were closer together than the last two.
-
Because a gorilla walking through a basketball game with intentionally distracted viewers is nothing like a bag on the floor of a crime scene where law enforcement officers are specifically examining the scene for evidence.
The Invisible Gorilla experiment spawned IB science.
Try to pay attention
;)
-
@lurkers
Inattentional Blindness
https://en.wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
-
Besides Oswald carrying his rifle to the crime scene in a brown paper bag,
LOL
is there any other evidence in the history of the world where a brown paper bag was employed to carry a rifle to a murder and then left at the scene?
Not that I know of -- including this one.
-
LOL. Nowhere in that video does McDonald even say that Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.
-
The Invisible Gorilla experiment spawned IB science.
Try to pay attention
;)
And this has what to do with a paper bag allegedly located in an alleged crime scene?
-
LOL. Nowhere in that video does McDonald even say that Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.
Oh, yes, he does. If you pay attention to the video McDonald states that he "snapped the pistol" in other words he pulled the trigger. Innocent people certainly don't try to shoot their way out, now do they.
-
And this has what to do with a paper bag allegedly located in an alleged crime scene?
Inattentional blindness possibilities
-
Oh, yes, he does. If you pay attention to the video McDonald states that he "snapped the pistol" in other words he pulled the trigger. Innocent people certainly don't try to shoot their way out, now do they.
Even if he did "snap the pistol" like embellisher McDonald claimed, that doesn't mean he was trying to shoot anybody. Furthermore,
CT Walker said that he saw several hands on the gun before it ever came out, and that when he heard a soft click (which Ray Hawkins said could have been somebody in the seats making a noise) the gun was pointed at a 45 degree angle and slightly toward the screen. Not only that, but McDonald said on day one that the gun misfired. The bit about sticking his hand between the hammer and the firing pin came later. And Paul Bentley claimed that he was the one who prevented the gun from firing.
So, there's no good reason to think that the trigger was necessarily ever pulled, and if it was there's no good reason to think that it must have been Oswald who did it, or that it was aimed toward a cop at the time.
-
Inattentional blindness possibilities
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
Because a gorilla walking through a basketball game with intentionally distracted viewers is nothing like a bag on the floor of a crime scene where law enforcement officers are specifically examining the scene for evidence.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
You missed the part where the gorilla test spawned/expanded* to real-life situations
Were the officers expecting to find a (folded) gun case made of paper, in a building with boxes wrapped in the exact same paper...
Inattentional Blindness*
@wikipedia
1 Defining criteria
1.1 Cognitive capture
2 The cognition debate: early vs. late selection of attention
2.1 Evidence for late selection
2.2 Evidence for early selection
3 Theories
3.1 Perceptual load
3.2 Inattentional amnesia
3.3 Expectation
3.4 Perceptual cycle
4 Experiments
4.1 Invisible Gorilla Test
4.2 A real-world experiment
4.3 Computer red cross experiment
4.4 Clown on a unicycle
4.5 Blindness despite fixation
4.6 Effects of expertise
5 Limitations of perception or memory?
6 Neuropsychological analogies
6.1 Visual neglect
6.2 Extinction
6.3 Inattentional agnosia
6.4 Change blindness
7 Additional factors exhibiting effects on it
7.1 Age and expertise
7.2 Similarity between stimuli
7.3 Mindfulness
8 Possible causes
8.1 Conspicuity
8.2 Mental workload and working memory
8.3 Expectation
8.4 Capacity
9 Benefits
10 Broader implications
10.1 Safety
10.2 Illusion
10.3 Police shootings
11 See also
12 Notes
13 References
14 Further reading
-
Not that I know of....
Thanks, that's why some law enforcement officers might have overlooked a brown paper bag.
JohnM
-
LOL. Nowhere in that video does McDonald even say that Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.
Nowhere in that video does McDonald even say that Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.
Did we watch the same video?
LOL.
That would be a clever response, if it was 1998.
Btw Iccy, last time I posted this stat you ran, tell us why you mainly post 8 hours a day 5 days a week and is the pay good?
(https://s17.postimg.org/5ej4w5rdb/iccy_stats.jpg)
JohnM
-
Btw Iccy, last time I posted this stat you ran, tell us why you mainly post 8 hours a day 5 days a week and is the pay good?
(https://s17.postimg.org/5ej4w5rdb/iccy_stats.jpg)
JohnM
That's one hell of an obsession you've got there.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=profile;area=statistics;u=33
-
That's one hell of an obsession you've got there.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=profile;area=statistics;u=33
Maybe you can tell us why the majority of members treat this like a hobby, an example as shown in your link, yet Iccy's times clearly reflect a job which is 8 hours a day Monday to Friday?
(https://s17.postimg.org/5ej4w5rdb/iccy_stats.jpg)
JohnM
-
Maybe you can tell us why the majority of members treat this like a hobby, an example as shown in your link, yet Iccy's times clearly reflect a job which is 8 hours a day Monday to Friday?
JohnM
No way. You are not dragging me into your obsession and/or diversion.
-
Were the officers expecting to find a (folded) gun case made of paper, in a building with boxes wrapped in the exact same paper...
They didn't seem to have a problem noticing a much smaller lunch bag.
-
Thanks, that's why some law enforcement officers might have overlooked a brown paper bag.
Or they might have not noticed a brown paper bag because it wasn't there yet.
-
Did we watch the same video?
Apparently not if you think McDonald said in that video that Oswald tried to shoot him.
That would be a clever response, if it was 1998.
Sorry, but "Oswald carrying his rifle to the crime scene in a brown paper bag" is the thing you're supposed to be proving. You don't just get to state it as a given. The reason I LOL is because you do that all the time. "Oswald's gun bag", "Oswald's rifle', "Oswald's ammunition", ad nauseum.
Btw Iccy,
Are you the same person who whined when somebody called him "Mutton"?
last time I posted this stat you ran, tell us why you mainly post 8 hours a day 5 days a week and is the pay good?
(http://rs1209.pbsrc.com/albums/cc395/scout03060/smileys/yawn-1.gif~c200)
Those who can make coherent arguments do. Those who cannot make up silly nicknames and try to change the subject.
-
LD Montgomery from No More Silence
(https://preview.ibb.co/i9XybH/73_EC1168_51_D4_4_E86_9375_75_DE6_B4_BA1_A0.jpg)
This revelation from Montgomery explains why no one saw the bag earlier. It was not out in the open but stuffed between boxes. The question is if this is true why did those involved in finding the bag lie when testifying before the WC?
-
LOL. Nowhere in that video does McDonald even say that Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.
Oh, yes, he does. If you pay attention to the video McDonald states that he "snapped the pistol" in other words he pulled the trigger. Innocent people certainly don't try to shoot their way out, now do they.
But Paul...
Iacoletti actually believes the snap could have been a theater seat springing to action as someone got up from it.
-
They didn't seem to have a problem noticing a much smaller lunch bag.
Well duh, of course a lunch bag that could have been used by Oswald would have stuck out like proverbials but a bag on the ground not so much.
JohnM
-
Apparently not if you think McDonald said in that video that Oswald tried to shoot him.
Sorry, but "Oswald carrying his rifle to the crime scene in a brown paper bag" is the thing you're supposed to be proving. You don't just get to state it as a given. The reason I LOL is because you do that all the time. "Oswald's gun bag", "Oswald's rifle', "Oswald's ammunition", ad nauseum.
Are you the same person who whined when somebody called him "Mutton"?
(http://rs1209.pbsrc.com/albums/cc395/scout03060/smileys/yawn-1.gif~c200)
Those who can make coherent arguments do. Those who cannot make up silly nicknames and try to change the subject.
Apparently not if you think McDonald said in that video that Oswald tried to shoot him.
Oh I see, so Oswald was trying to fire a warning shot! Nice one!
You don't just get to state it as a given.
Who the hell do you think you are, I go by the evidence!
"Oswald's gun bag"
Oswald's rifle bag had Oswald's prints, Oswald lied about where he put the package and Oswald lied about the contents of the package.
"Oswald's rifle'
Oswald bought C2766, was photographed with C2766 and a rifle with serial number C2766 was found at Oswald work, the same work where Oswald pissbolted at 12:33.
Are you the same person who whined when somebody called him "Mutton"?
Tom resorted to insults as a way to strengthen a weak argument whereas I just shortened your alphabetic surname to something easier to type and in no way intended it as an insult. A huge difference!
Those who can make coherent arguments do.
Irony at its finest!
Those who cannot make up silly nicknames
What like Markham being called "Miss Screwball"? -sigh-
and try to change the subject.
Ok, so by not confronting my question, you've essentially answered it, thanks!
JohnM
-
Well duh, of course a lunch bag that could have been used by Oswald would have stuck out like proverbials but a bag on the ground not so much.
JohnM
Of course the lunch bag could belong to the assassin, it was found in the SN. As for the long bag it was found between boxes by Montgomery after he and Johnson were instructed by Fritz to guard the SN. That clearly explains why no one saw it until he extracted the folded bag from between the boxes. If so, why would the Johnson and Montgomery feel the need to lie to the WC?
-
Of course the lunch bag could belong to the assassin, it was found in the SN. As for the long bag it was found between boxes by Montgomery after he and Johnson were instructed by Fritz to guard the SN. That clearly explains why no one saw it until he extracted the folded bag from between the boxes. If so, why would the Johnson and Montgomery feel the need to lie to the WC?
How about you post the relevant testimony then I'll explain why you're wrong.
JohnM
-
LD Montgomery from No More Silence
(https://preview.ibb.co/i9XybH/73_EC1168_51_D4_4_E86_9375_75_DE6_B4_BA1_A0.jpg)
This revelation from Montgomery explains why no one saw the bag earlier. It was not out in the open but stuffed between boxes. The question is if this is true why did those involved in finding the bag lie when testifying before the WC?
Not necessarily, Oswald's brown paper bag may have been out in the open before someone inadvertently moved the large bag out of the way to get a better look for real evidence, then later when they found the rifle they had a brainwave and realized that the innocent looking large bag was in fact real evidence and large enough to carry Oswald's rifle.
JohnM
-
No one argues that every witness is a good observer. We do not even have to assume that most witnesses are good observers. (Although, controlled studies of human behaviour indicate that the majority of witnesses are correct when reporting details of highly salient facts- facts that were recalled by most of the witnesses). Rather, it is about the statistical significance of the observations of witnesses who independently report having made a particular observation.
If I had not seen the video and I asked 100 people who had watched the video (alone and without being exposed to anyone else's reaction) to independently (ie. without discussing it with any other witness) tell me what they saw and if only 5 people told me they saw a person dressed as a gorilla walk through and 95 failed to notice anything unusual, I could still very reliably conclude that a person dressed as a gorilla walked through. That is so highly statistically significant that it leaves no room for any other conclusion. The gorilla observations are reliable because the alternative is the 5 people all, independently, had the same strange hallucination. A witness would have to make up the "gorilla" story. If another wanted to make up a story as well, the chance that that person would independently choose to make up the same story is very small (one could say it was zero, since there are an infinite number of things a person can make up). If another 3 reported observing the same thing, independently, that makes it even more of certainty. The key is "independence". If only one person reported seeing a gorilla, I could draw no conclusion because I have no independent corroboration - no way to determine whether that person has a vision problem or some kind of mental issue or is simply lying.
In the JFK assassination, the majority of witnesses did not observe what JFK did in response to the first shot. We ignore the lack of observations because the lack of observations are not independent events - they were either not looking at the president or, if they were, could not recall what he did. We pay attention to those who did make an observation of what he did in response to the first shot. As far as I can tell, with the possible exception of Mary Woodward (possibly, because she gave evidence that the last two shots were close together, which conflicts with JFK not being hit by the first shot) all witnesses who reported seeing JFK at the time of the first shot observed an unusual kind of reaction. There were at least 20 such witnesses. No witness who observed JFK's reaction said that he continued to smile and/or wave afterward, let alone for 3 seconds afterward. If only half of those observations were independent, I could confidently conclude that JFK reacted in an odd way to the first shot, similar to what is seen in the zfilm after JFK is struck in the neck/back. We can, therefore, reliably conclude that JFK was struck in the neck/back on the first shot.
You make an assumption that the 100 viewers of the film did not talk to each other. But how could you know that? How do you know the witnesses at Dealey Plaza did not influence each other? One man might influence the opinions of several, who may influence the opinions of several others. One man who seems to know what he is talking about, may insist the last two shots were on top of each other might tell several people about what he heard. While none of the ?Even spacing? witnesses talked about this.
You admit that sometimes, this ?Find the Truth by seeing what the majority thinks? breaks down. But it doesn?t matter, because you can use your judgement to tell when it did, or it likely did, break down. You can tell that if 95 people don?t recall a man in a gorilla suit, but 5 do, that this is a special exception.
Even if this is true, this Great Principle is not a great principle, if the majority of the witnesses can be way off in some cases. How can we tell which examples violate this great principle? Can we rely on your intuition?
Let?s take the gorilla film example. You say you can tell what happened, because if 95 people don?t recall a man in a gorilla suit, but 5 do, you can logically conclude that there must have been a man in a gorilla suit. Because it is unlikely that 5 people would see something so off the wall and all saw the same thing.
But does this work in general? Suppose there wasn?t a man in a gorilla suit. The film showed two teams, one in white basketball uniforms, the other in black basketball uniforms. In the middle of the practice, a man in some black clothes with a black hat walked across. If 5 people reported that one of the men was not wearing a basketball uniform, would this be so off the wall that we could expect you to conclude that the 95 witnesses were wrong and the 5 witnesses were right?
Or let?s go with the original gorilla film. 95 views report nothing unusual but 5 report there was a black gorilla. Can we really deduce there must have been a man in a gorilla suit? Maybe one the views thought he saw a gorilla in the last second of the film. And he told other people that he saw a man in a gorilla suit. He could be so convincing, that some other people might believe him. In interviews taken down later that day, 5 people might report seeing a man in a gorilla suit. What you assumed was 5 independent events weren?t really independent events at all. The error of all 5 people was caused by the error of just one man.
And in the Dealey Plaza witnesses, you conclude the majority in a list of witnesses reporting the limousine stopped or almost stopped, you just claim the list is faulty. Without providing us with a better list.
It seems that whenever a failure of the ?Majority must be right? witness theory, you do special pleading with each example. The gorilla film is not a problem because you can use your special analysis to spot a special exception. The majority of the witnesses report the limousine stopping or almost stopping, contradicting the Zapruder films, and all other films, is just the case of a bad list. That is what your judgment tells you. While your judgment tells you that the list of the ?Spacing of the Shots? witnesses is a good list and should be trusted.
No it doesn't. You would not be comfortable concluding from the 5 "gorilla" witnesses that there was a "gorilla". I would. I would be right. You would be wrong.
No. I would not be comfortable with going with either the 95 ?non-gorilla? witnesses nor the 5 ?gorilla? witnesses. I do not trust witnesses.
But a man who relies on the ?Majority opinion of the witnesses? would be wrong. Unless he had some special intuition that told him when to apply this principle and when not to.
Who says they have to be trying to count shots? Recalling three shots, particularly when they form a pattern, does not require conscious counting. The memory of hearing a loud noise a pause of several seconds and then two more "in rapid succession" can be recalled relatively easily afterward. Counting 15 passes in that video cannot. You cannot use the video to say that the witnesses as a whole cannot be relied on as to the number and pattern of three shots, particularly when that number and pattern is the only one that fits with other bodies of independent evidence.
The observers of the gorilla film failed to do what one would think they should easily do, spot the gorilla. Because they were concentrating on something else, counting the number of passes the white team made to each other. Similarly, the Dealey Plaza witnesses may have failed to do what one would think they should easily do, tell us how many shots were fired, the spacing of the shots, the speed of the limousine. Because they were concentrating on something else. Hoping to catch the eye of the President or the First Lady. Trying to remember their likely one and only close up view of a President and First Lady.
As a final aside, how could the shot spacing witnesses be explained? Perhaps the witnesses were distracted, but not during the entire event. After the fatal headshot, they realized something terrible happened. The remembered the previous 5 seconds pretty well, from 5 to 10 seconds not so well, and over 10 seconds not well at all. The could have forgetting the first ?backfire? or ?firecracker?, remembered the second shot vaguely, the last shot rather well, with it?s ?Crack-Thump?. Hence becoming a ?3 shot ? last two shots close together? witness.
-
How about you post the relevant testimony then I'll explain why you're wrong.
JohnM
The relevant testimony for which bit? The lunchsack in the SN or the bag in the corner?
-
No one argues that every witness is a good observer. We do not even have to assume that most witnesses are good observers. (Although, controlled studies of human behaviour indicate that the majority of witnesses are correct when reporting details of highly salient facts- facts that were recalled by most of the witnesses). Rather, it is about the statistical significance of the observations of witnesses who independently report having made a particular observation.
If I had not seen the video and I asked 100 people who had watched the video (alone and without being exposed to anyone else's reaction) to independently (ie. without discussing it with any other witness) tell me what they saw and if only 5 people told me they saw a person dressed as a gorilla walk through and 95 failed to notice anything unusual, I could still very reliably conclude that a person dressed as a gorilla walked through. That is so highly statistically significant that it leaves no room for any other conclusion. The gorilla observations are reliable because the alternative is the 5 people all, independently, had the same strange hallucination. A witness would have to make up the "gorilla" story. If another wanted to make up a story as well, the chance that that person would independently choose to make up the same story is very small (one could say it was zero, since there are an infinite number of things a person can make up). If another 3 reported observing the same thing, independently, that makes it even more of certainty. The key is "independence". If only one person reported seeing a gorilla, I could draw no conclusion because I have no independent corroboration - no way to determine whether that person has a vision problem or some kind of mental issue or is simply lying.
In the JFK assassination, the majority of witnesses did not observe what JFK did in response to the first shot. We ignore the lack of observations because the lack of observations are not independent events - they were either not looking at the president or, if they were, could not recall what he did. We pay attention to those who did make an observation of what he did in response to the first shot. As far as I can tell, with the possible exception of Mary Woodward (possibly, because she gave evidence that the last two shots were close together, which conflicts with JFK not being hit by the first shot) all witnesses who reported seeing JFK at the time of the first shot observed an unusual kind of reaction. There were at least 20 such witnesses. No witness who observed JFK's reaction said that he continued to smile and/or wave afterward, let alone for 3 seconds afterward. If only half of those observations were independent, I could confidently conclude that JFK reacted in an odd way to the first shot, similar to what is seen in the zfilm after JFK is struck in the neck/back. We can, therefore, reliably conclude that JFK was struck in the neck/back on the first shot.
No it doesn't. You would not be comfortable concluding from the 5 "gorilla" witnesses that there was a "gorilla". I would. I would be right. You would be wrong.
Who says they have to be trying to count shots? Recalling three shots, particularly when they form a pattern, does not require conscious counting. The memory of hearing a loud noise a pause of several seconds and then two more "in rapid succession" can be recalled relatively easily afterward. Counting 15 passes in that video cannot. You cannot use the video to say that the witnesses as a whole cannot be relied on as to the number and pattern of three shots, particularly when that number and pattern is the only one that fits with other bodies of independent evidence.
Outstanding post
-
Questions for Andrew Mason
Someone could test eyewitnesses by various means. They might have a basketball practice where a man in a gorilla suit walks across frame. Or maybe have just a man in ordinary dark clothes walk across the frame.
Using the Principle ?Majority Views of the Witnesses?, of making use of what the majority of witnesses observe, what can one logically conclude and briefly explain why:
Question 1:
If 100 people observe a basketball practice and 5 people observer a man in a gorilla suit but 95 do not, what can one logically conclude?
Question 2:
If 100 people observe a basketball practice and 5 people observer a man not wearing a basketball uniform but 95 do not, what can one logically conclude?
Question 3:
Is the filming of the gorilla in the basketball practice an example of distracted witnesses?
Question 4:
Is the assassination of the President Kennedy an example where most of witnesses were distracted?
Question 5:
Do cases of distracted witnesses present a problem for the Principle of ?Majority Views of the Witnesses??
-
They didn't seem to have a problem noticing a much smaller lunch bag.
You mean the lunch bag that was found on the top of the barricade?
And the gun bag that was found folded up between boxes?
Those bags?
-
Of course the lunch bag could belong to the assassin, it was found in the SN. As for the long bag it was found between boxes by Montgomery after he and Johnson were instructed by Fritz to guard the SN. That clearly explains why no one saw it until he extracted the folded bag from between the boxes. If so, why would the Johnson and Montgomery feel the need to lie to the WC?
Where did he lie? (I've just quickly skimmed through his testimonies and pulled this up, so I might have missed something)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/montgom1.htm
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
-
But Paul...
Iacoletti actually believes the snap could have been a theater seat springing to action as someone got up from it.
Brown actually believes that a click or a snap noise must be a trigger on a revolver being pulled.
But don't blame me for the idea -- blame Ray Hawkins.
-
Oh I see, so Oswald was trying to fire a warning shot! Nice one!
You haven't demonstrated that Oswald did anything with that revolver.
Who the hell do you think you are, I go by the evidence!
No, you state your conclusions as facts.
Oswald's rifle bag had Oswald's prints, Oswald lied about where he put the package and Oswald lied about the contents of the package.
Says the guy who can't even show that a rifle was ever in that bag.
Oswald bought C2766, was photographed with C2766 and a rifle with serial number C2766 was found at Oswald work, the same work where Oswald pissbolted at 12:33.
Those are conclusions based on your faulty characterization of the actual evidence.
Tom resorted to insults as a way to strengthen a weak argument whereas I just shortened your alphabetic surname to something easier to type and in no way intended it as an insult. A huge difference!
That's hysterical. Do you think anybody is going to buy that?
What like Markham being called "Miss Screwball"? -sigh-
Take that up with Joseph "was there a number two man in there" Ball.
-
Not necessarily, Oswald's brown paper bag may have been out in the open before someone inadvertently moved the large bag out of the way
"Oswald's brown paper bag". LOL.
-
You mean the lunch bag that was found on the top of the barricade?
And the gun bag that was found folded up between boxes?
Those bags?
What "gun bag"? And I thought that bag was lying on the floor. Must be more gorillas.
-
You make an assumption that the 100 viewers of the film did not talk to each other.
No. I make the assumption that the five did not all agree to lie in the same way. Even if some or all of the five had talked to each other, it is unlikely they would enter into a conspiracy to lie, especially absent some reason to lie about what they had seen. It is much, much, much more likely that at least two of them actually recalled seeing what they said they saw.
But how could you know that? How do you know the witnesses at Dealey Plaza did not influence each other?
I don't know if they were all free from outside influence. It appears unlikely that they received information about the shot pattern but they could have heard about the number of shots from others. But receiving information from others does not mean they are not independent - that they were not reporting what they actually recalled observing. Studies show (Loftus) that while information from others may affect some witnesses' recollection, it does not affect most and is much less of an influence when the witness is interviewed soon after the events, as most of the witnesses were (in relation to the shot pattern and the number of shots. )
You admit that sometimes, this ?Find the Truth by seeing what the majority thinks? breaks down.
I have never said that the what the majority thinks is a reliable method of determining what happened. It is a matter of the statistical significance of specific observations by a number of observers. What the majority thinks may or may not be statistically significant.
But it doesn?t matter, because you can use your judgement to tell when it did, or it likely did, break down. You can tell that if 95 people don?t recall a man in a gorilla suit, but 5 do, that this is a special exception.
It is not a matter of judgement. It is a matter of probability of independent observers reporting the same observation. That does not happen by random chance.
Even if this is true, this Great Principle is not a great principle, if the majority of the witnesses can be way off in some cases. How can we tell which examples violate this great principle? Can we rely on your intuition?
It is not about intuition. It is about mathematics. The majority of witnesses are rarely way off in their observations of salient facts. Where large numbers of witnesses have been wrong is where their ability to observe or compare is limited and they are effectively giving opinions of what they observed rather than simple describing what they observed. This is particularly so with respect to facial comparisons (eg. witness tries to identify a person that they do not know from a photo line) or a witness tries to compare a sound to something they have heard before.
Let?s take the gorilla film example. You say you can tell what happened, because if 95 people don?t recall a man in a gorilla suit, but 5 do, you can logically conclude that there must have been a man in a gorilla suit. Because it is unlikely that 5 people would see something so off the wall and all saw the same thing.
So at least you agree with me on the gorilla observation. That's a start....
But does this work in general? Suppose there wasn?t a man in a gorilla suit. The film showed two teams, one in white basketball uniforms, the other in black basketball uniforms. In the middle of the practice, a man in some black clothes with a black hat walked across. If 5 people reported that one of the men was not wearing a basketball uniform, would this be so off the wall that we could expect you to conclude that the 95 witnesses were wrong and the 5 witnesses were right?
The short answer is : if the observations were independent, yes. Let's assume that in the group of 100 people there were 5 liars. A man walking through with a hat is not the only thing a person would make up. But let's say there was a 1/10 chance that a liar who wanted to make up a story would make up a story about a man wearing a hat. If they are independent, the probability that 4 liars would independently make up the same story as the first liar is 1 in 10,000. The conclusion has to be that it is extremely unlikely that there was not a man with a hat in that video.
Or let?s go with the original gorilla film. 95 views report nothing unusual but 5 report there was a black gorilla. Can we really deduce there must have been a man in a gorilla suit? Maybe one the views thought he saw a gorilla in the last second of the film. And he told other people that he saw a man in a gorilla suit. He could be so convincing, that some other people might believe him. In interviews taken down later that day, 5 people might report seeing a man in a gorilla suit. What you assumed was 5 independent events weren?t really independent events at all. The error of all 5 people was caused by the error of just one man.
Then they would not be independent. If 5 people said there was a gorilla in the film and there really wasn't, you would know that the witnesses were not independent. If they were really independent, it is virtually impossible that even two witnesses would report seeing a gorilla if there was no gorilla.
And in the Dealey Plaza witnesses, you conclude the majority in a list of witnesses reporting the limousine stopped or almost stopped, you just claim the list is faulty. Without providing us with a better list.
Not true. Here is my analysis of all the witnesses who observed the limo. 8 said it stopped. Most said it slowed or almost stopped. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Palamara_analysed_am.pdf) This is more an illustration of witnesses who were not in a good position to observe whether it actually stopped providing an inference rather than an actual observation.
It seems that whenever a failure of the ?Majority must be right? witness theory, you do special pleading with each example. The gorilla film is not a problem because you can use your special analysis to spot a special exception. The majority of the witnesses report the limousine stopping or almost stopping, contradicting the Zapruder films, and all other films, is just the case of a bad list. That is what your judgment tells you. While your judgment tells you that the list of the ?Spacing of the Shots? witnesses is a good list and should be trusted.
All I am assuming is that at many of the witnesses(I don't have to assume all) were providing independent honest recollections of what they recalled hearing. That is all.
No. I would not be comfortable with going with either the 95 ?non-gorilla? witnesses nor the 5 ?gorilla? witnesses. I do not trust witnesses.
Fine. You could decline to draw the conclusion that there was a gorilla in it. But you can't conclude that the 5 witnesses were wrong unless you have evidence that the 5 were not independent. Not just a possibility but actual evidence that they all colluded. There are only two reasonable possibilities: the five were right or they all colluded.
But a man who relies on the ?Majority opinion of the witnesses? would be wrong. Unless he had some special intuition that told him when to apply this principle and when not to.
The observers of the gorilla film failed to do what one would think they should easily do, spot the gorilla. Because they were concentrating on something else, counting the number of passes the white team made to each other. Similarly, the Dealey Plaza witnesses may have failed to do what one would think they should easily do, tell us how many shots were fired, the spacing of the shots, the speed of the limousine. Because they were concentrating on something else. Hoping to catch the eye of the President or the First Lady. Trying to remember their likely one and only close up view of a President and First Lady.
As a final aside, how could the shot spacing witnesses be explained? Perhaps the witnesses were distracted, but not during the entire event. After the fatal headshot, they realized something terrible happened. The remembered the previous 5 seconds pretty well, from 5 to 10 seconds not so well, and over 10 seconds not well at all. The could have forgetting the first ?backfire? or ?firecracker?, remembered the second shot vaguely, the last shot rather well, with it?s ?Crack-Thump?. Hence becoming a ?3 shot ? last two shots close together? witness.
That is speculation. One cannot draw conclusions from speculation. Without evidence that such influence actually occurred and was widespread, the likelihood that they were all influenced to provide the wrong pattern of shots is much, much, much smaller than the probability that they actually observed the 1......2...3 pattern.
-
Apparently not if you think McDonald said in that video that Oswald tried to shoot him.
Sorry, but "Oswald carrying his rifle to the crime scene in a brown paper bag" is the thing you're supposed to be proving. You don't just get to state it as a given. The reason I LOL is because you do that all the time. "Oswald's gun bag", "Oswald's rifle', "Oswald's ammunition", ad nauseum.
Are you the same person who whined when somebody called him "Mutton"?
(http://rs1209.pbsrc.com/albums/cc395/scout03060/smileys/yawn-1.gif~c200)
Those who can make coherent arguments do. Those who cannot make up silly nicknames and try to change the subject.
The reason I LOL is because you do that all the time. "Oswald's gun bag", "Oswald's rifle', "Oswald's ammunition", ad nauseum.
Will your 'random guy' be more acceptable?
How about 'Anyone But Oswald' ('RandomMan')?
-
Will your 'random guy' be more acceptable?
What do you mean my random guy? I never said anything about a random guy.
-
It is not about intuition. It is about mathematics. The majority of witnesses are rarely way off in their observations of salient facts.
Three (if that's what it was) loud noises became increasing "salient" as the sounds unfolded. The first few loud noises weren't "salient" to everyone. Some dismissed the first loud report as a backfire or firecracker. They were also in a distraction setting with peak concentration on the motorcade at the time of the first shot.
While it's true they could not fail to hear three shots (if there were, in fact, three shots), it doesn't mean it was stored in memory equally. For some of the witnesses, their perception and retention of initial events (some termed the first shot as a backfire or firecracker) could be affected by a greater concentration on the latter shots and things occurring visually up to and including the shock of the head shot and the dramatic Jackie/Clint potential tragedy.
Spectators in the stands at the Boston Marathon Bombing barely react until the second bomb goes off.
-
What do you mean my random guy? I never said anything about a random guy.
It was a description you used to describe Oswald in relation to the scene around the TT
-
No. I make the assumption that the five did not all agree to lie in the same way. Even if some or all of the five had talked to each other, it is unlikely they would enter into a conspiracy to lie, especially absent some reason to lie about what they had seen. It is much, much, much more likely that at least two of them actually recalled seeing what they said they saw.
No. I?m not assuming five decided to lie. I am postulating that one person was mistaken and influenced four others, before they could be interviewed.
I have never said that the what the majority thinks is a reliable method of determining what happened. It is a matter of the statistical significance of specific observations by a number of observers. What the majority thinks may or may not be statistically significant.
It is not a matter of judgement. It is a matter of probability of independent observers reporting the same observation. That does not happen by random chance.
This is real helpful. To paraphrase what you are saying:
What the majority thinks may have happened is a matter of statistical significance. Except when it isn?t.
You can tell when the statistical method can be used using, what appears to me, by intuition. If the majority reports a certain shot pattern, but a minority reports a different pattern, you can tell, that in this case, the majority is right. But in the case of the gorilla film, if the majority reports no gorilla, but a minority reports a gorilla, you can tell, that in this case, the statistical method cannot be used, because the minority, in this case, are probably right.
It is not about intuition. It is about mathematics. The majority of witnesses are rarely way off in their observations of salient facts. Where large numbers of witnesses have been wrong is where their ability to observe or compare is limited and they are effectively giving opinions of what they observed rather than simple describing what they observed. This is particularly so with respect to facial comparisons (eg. witness tries to identify a person that they do not know from a photo line) or a witness tries to compare a sound to something they have heard before.
It?s not about mathematics. It will only be mathematics if the witness errors are random. We cannot assume that.
Not true. Here is my analysis of all the witnesses who observed the limo. 8 said it stopped. Most said it slowed or almost stopped. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Palamara_analysed_am.pdf) This is more an illustration of witnesses who were not in a good position to observe whether it actually stopped providing an inference rather than an actual observation.
The bottom line is, using the statistical method to determine the approximate ?Speed of the Limousine? using witnesses fails. We would not know this is we did not have the films of the assassination.
As you acknowledge, the statistical method fails in this case. Probably, indeed, because most witnesses were not in a clear position to see the limousine, only the follow up cars which did (probably) stop. But that did not prevent them from giving a confident opinion. Something we should remember about with the ?Spacing of the Shots? witnesses.
This is a classic case as to why we cannot rely on the statistical method. Because the errors witnesses made were not random. We cannot assume these errors are always going to be random. Which is what we need if the statistical method is going to be dependable.
Could the ?Shot Spacing? witnesses be an example of widespread witness error, non-random witness error, just like the ?Speed of the Limousine? witnesses? Easily. Below is a possible theory:
Most witnesses were distracted. Concentrating on the President and the First Lady. They may have ignored, possibly forgot what they assumed were backfires or firecrackers. When the realized shots were fired, they may have remembered the more recent shots better than the first. Hence:
First shot: Had forgotten about 15 seconds later, it never really got stored in their permanent memory.
Second shot: Remembered, but not very well.
Third shot: Remembered it very well, as a ?Crack-Thump?.
Hence, many may have remembered ?Bang <pause> Bang Bang?.
As I recall, some witnesses thought all the shots occurred in pairs, ?Bang Bang <pause> Bang Bang?.
My theory may be false. But we cannot assume it is false. There may have been not just significant but non-random witness errors, in the ?Shot Pattern? witnesses, just was there was in the ?Speed of the Limousine? witnesses.
-
Three (if that's what it was) loud noises became increasing "salient" as the sounds unfolded. The first few loud noises weren't "salient" to everyone. Some dismissed the first loud report as a backfire or firecracker. They were also in a distraction setting with peak concentration on the motorcade at the time of the first shot.
While it's true they could not fail to hear three shots (if there were, in fact, three shots), it doesn't mean it was stored in memory equally. For some of the witnesses, their perception and retention of initial events (some termed the first shot as a backfire or firecracker) could be affected by a greater concentration on the latter shots and things occurring visually up to and including the shock of the head shot and the dramatic Jackie/Clint potential tragedy.
This is correct. They may have a better memory of the previous 5 seconds, when they first realized that shots had been fired, than they did of 5 to 10 seconds earlier and worse yet for 10 to 15 seconds earlier. If certain events are not remembered within a few seconds, they may be, likely will be, forgotten altogether.
Spectators in the stands at the Boston Marathon Bombing barely react until the second bomb goes off.
Yes, an example of distracted witnesses becoming aware witnesses.
-
No. I?m not assuming five decided to lie. I am postulating that one person was mistaken and influenced four others, before they could be interviewed.
But if the 5 witnesses said that they saw a gorilla and, in fact, did not (and, of course, they would know they did not) they would be lying in saying that they saw one. If they were truthful, they would say something like: "I don't remember but I think there may have been a gorilla because Bob told me".
This is real helpful. To paraphrase what you are saying:
What the majority thinks may have happened is a matter of statistical significance. Except when it isn?t.
No. That is not what I am saying. If 51% said there were 3 shots and 49% said there were 4, I would not be able to conclude whether there were 3 or 4 shots. I would conclude that witnesses had difficulty observing the number of shots and were confused by something. This is because 51-49 is not statistically significant. Even 60-40 may not be enough, especially if the quality of the recollections was poor (eg. " I am not sure but I would say there were three, maybe four, no i think three"). You cannot simply draw conclusions based on what the majority observed.
You can tell when the statistical method can be used using, what appears to me, by intuition. If the majority reports a certain shot pattern, but a minority reports a different pattern, you can tell, that in this case, the majority is right. But in the case of the gorilla film, if the majority reports no gorilla, but a minority reports a gorilla, you can tell, that in this case, the statistical method cannot be used, because the minority, in this case, are probably right.
No. The point of the video is that most people are not observing anything other than the white players so if they noticed nothing, their failure to notice is not significant. But for those who did notice, the similarity of their observations cannot be explained by anything other than 1. they saw the gorilla or 2. they were lying and colluding.
It?s not about mathematics. It will only be mathematics if the witness errors are random. We cannot assume that.
Again: two possibilities: they saw a gorilla or they were colluding and lying about it. If they were not colluding you can conclude that any errors would be random.
The bottom line is, using the statistical method to determine the approximate ?Speed of the Limousine? using witnesses fails. We would not know this is we did not have the films of the assassination.
As you acknowledge, the statistical method fails in this case. Probably, indeed, because most witnesses were not in a clear position to see the limousine, only the follow up cars which did (probably) stop. But that did not prevent them from giving a confident opinion. Something we should remember about with the ?Spacing of the Shots? witnesses.
You can tell by the distribution of witnesses to the limo slowing down that the ability of many to observe whether it actually stopped was restricted. They saw the brake lights and a motorcycle stop (it actually did) and other cars in the motorcade ( not seen in the zfilm) may have actually stopped. They formed the opinion that it stopped. This was an inference based on what they saw. We can see this in some of the witnesses who initially said it stopped and then had to admit that they weren't sure it stopped, just that it slowed eg. Dallas police officer Earle Brown
This is a classic case as to why we cannot rely on the statistical method. Because the errors witnesses made were not random. We cannot assume these errors are always going to be random. Which is what we need if the statistical method is going to be dependable.
There are two possibilities: errors are random or they are caused by a common factor that induces the error (such as collusion/lying). If the circumstances permit a possible explanation for error other than collusion/lying (such as the brake lights combined with slow speed combined with the motorcycle stopping and the officer getting off and giving people the same impression that the car had actually stopped) you can look at that. But, invariably, in such cases you rarely get statistically significant distributions - as we see in the "limo stopped" witnesses. There were 8 who said it stopped and 19 who said it slowed or that the motorcade stopped without specifying whether the limo stopped. We can't be sure if any cars in the motorcade actually stopped but we certainly cannot say that none stopped.
Could the ?Shot Spacing? witnesses be an example of widespread witness error, non-random witness error, just like the ?Speed of the Limousine? witnesses? Easily. Below is a possible theory:
Most witnesses were distracted. Concentrating on the President and the First Lady. They may have ignored, possibly forgot what they assumed were backfires or firecrackers. When the realized shots were fired, they may have remembered the more recent shots better than the first. Hence:
First shot: Had forgotten about 15 seconds later, it never really got stored in their permanent memory.
Second shot: Remembered, but not very well.
Third shot: Remembered it very well, as a ?Crack-Thump?.
Hence, many may have remembered ?Bang <pause> Bang Bang?.
As I recall, some witnesses thought all the shots occurred in pairs, ?Bang Bang <pause> Bang Bang?.
My theory may be false. But we cannot assume it is false. There may have been not just significant but non-random witness errors, in the ?Shot Pattern? witnesses, just was there was in the ?Speed of the Limousine? witnesses.
The question is whether it is true. The only way you can determine if it is a true theory is by comparing it to the evidence. Not a single witness said they had difficulty recalling the 1......2....3 shot pattern. Ask Robert Jackson or Mary Woodward what the shot pattern was. They still remember it. Ask them what they think of your theory.
-
The question is whether it is true. The only way you can determine if it is a true theory is by comparing it to the evidence. Not a single witness said they had difficulty recalling the 1......2....3 shot pattern. Ask Robert Jackson or Mary Woodward what the shot pattern was. They still remember it. Ask them what they think of your theory.
Robert (Bob) Jackson was certainly a distracted witness at the time of the first shot. He was looking backwards from the car he was in and laughing with others at a reporter who was trying to get a roll of film thrown to him that the wind had caught.
To you, Mary Woodward is reliable for "shot spanning"-- but "hazy" in her claim the first shot struck no one and the second shot made the President slump?
-
You haven't demonstrated that Oswald did anything with that revolver.
No, you state your conclusions as facts.
Says the guy who can't even show that a rifle was ever in that bag.
Those are conclusions based on your faulty characterization of the actual evidence.
That's hysterical. Do you think anybody is going to buy that?
Take that up with Joseph "was there a number two man in there" Ball.
No, you state your conclusions as facts
>You state the facts as lies
Those are conclusions based on your faulty characterization of the actual evidence
>Your conclusions are cherry-picked misrepresentations of the facts.
That's hysterical. Do you think anybody is going to buy that?
>Do you think anyone is going to take seriously someone (you and Caprio) who claims the only reason the DPD converged on the TT was solely because a man was reported for being suspected of not buying a ticket?
(https://www.unixstickers.com/image/data/stickers/meme/troll/Troll-face.sh.png)
-
It was a description you used to describe Oswald in relation to the scene around the TT
I think you're confused. Must be inattentional blindness.
-
>You state the facts as lies
Provide a single example.
>Your conclusions are cherry-picked misrepresentations of the facts.
Provide a single example.
>Do you think anyone is going to take seriously someone (you and Caprio) who claims the only reason the DPD converged on the TT was solely because a man was reported for being suspected of not buying a ticket?
Neither Caprio or I have ever claimed that. It's appropriate that you posted a troll graphic, because that's exactly what you're doing: accusing people of saying stuff that they never said.
-
Three (if that's what it was) loud noises became increasing "salient" as the sounds unfolded. The first few loud noises weren't "salient" to everyone.
On what evidence do you base that statement? Name one witness who did not notice the first shot - or any of the shots. Only a few identified it as a rifle shot, but they could not help but hear that "horrible, ear-shattering noise" (as Mary Woodward described it).
They were also in a distraction setting with peak concentration on the motorcade at the time of the first shot.
On what evidence do you base that statement? Name one witness who "dismissed" the first loud noise from their mind. Do you think that hearing another similar noise 4 seconds later that they could not remember having heard the first?
While it's true they could not fail to hear three shots (if there were, in fact, three shots), it doesn't mean it was stored in memory equally. For some of the witnesses, their perception and retention of initial events (some termed the first shot as a backfire or firecracker) could be affected by a greater concentration on the latter shots and things occurring visually up to and including the shock of the head shot and the dramatic Jackie/Clint potential tragedy.
And if you actually had evidence that this occurred at all, let alone that it affected the vast majority of witnesses, I could take it seriously. But as it is, it is just made-up - speculation. Think about it: if these witnesses had trouble recalling the pattern of three loud ear-shattering noises spaced 1...2.......3 why did they recall 1.......2...3 in so many different, consistent ways? ie:
- Many witnesses, without quantifying the spacing, said that they heard a loud noise and then a pause then two in rapid succession.
- John Wiseman heard a loud noise - then ran from the front door of the Sheriff's building to the corner of Houston and Main (half the width of the building) and then hears 2 more shots (John Wiseman 19 H 535)
- Wm. Greer stated that the second followed the first by three or four seconds and ?The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other, but I don?t recollect just how much, how many seconds were between the two. I couldn?t really say.? 2 H 118.
- Sorrels: ?There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.? 7 H 345.
- Bowers: ?I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together?. 6 H 287.
- Paternostro: ?He said he estimated several seconds, possibly four or five or more, elapsed between the first report and the second and third reports?... ?then when the other reports followed in quick succession?CE 2105, 24 H 536.
Spectators in the stands at the Boston Marathon Bombing barely react until the second bomb goes off.
How is that relevant? As I understand it, the two bombs were separated by a city block and were 12 seconds apart, so it is understandable that people near the site of the second bomb may not have reacted to the first. In any event, few spectators on Elm St. reacted to the first shot. They did not react until after the second or third shots.
This does not mean that the sound of the shots, or of the bombs, was not etched in the witness' memories.
-
Robert (Bob) Jackson was certainly a distracted witness at the time of the first shot. He was looking backwards from the car he was in and laughing with others at a reporter who was trying to get a roll of film thrown to him that the wind had caught.
He was looking forward toward the TSBD at the time of the shots. The incident that you mention occurred at the corner. Their car was "approximately almost half a block on Houston Street when he heard the first shot. He just had to look up to see the rifle in the 6th Floor window.
To you, Mary Woodward is reliable for "shot spanning"-- but "hazy" in her claim the first shot struck no one and the second shot made the President slump?
No to me. To her. She said that things were a bit hazy after the first shot as to what it hit. But the one thing that she said she would swear on the bible till the day she dies is that there were three shots - the last two sounding one over top of the echo of the other.
-
He was looking forward toward the TSBD at the time of the shots. The incident that you mention occurred at the corner. Their car was "approximately almost half a block on Houston Street when he heard the first shot. He just had to look up to see the rifle in the 6th Floor window.
Stop lawyering up the witness.
Mr. SPECTER - All right. Will you now proceed to tell us what happened as you rounded the corner of Main and Houston , Please?
Mr. JACKSON - Well, as our reporter chased the film out into the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the the first shot. We were approximately almost half a block on Houston Street.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you identify for me on Commission Exhibit 347, Precisely as possible, where your automobile was at the time you heard the first shot?
Mr. JACKSON - Approximately right here, I would say the midpoint of this building. Approximately where we heard the first report.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you mark a black "X" on 347 the spot where your car was at the time you heard the first shot?
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/001/1133/images/img_1133_968_100.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kA0t5zvaW70/hqdefault.jpg)
Z180s, Jackson is pass the midpoint of the building. And he's still turned away from the Depository.
No to me. To her. She said that things were a bit hazy after the first shot as to what it hit. But the one thing that she said she would swear on the bible till the day she dies is that there were three shots - the last two sounding one over top of the echo of the other.
You mean this quote:
"One thing I am totally positive about in my own mind is how
many shots there were. And there were three shots. The
second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one
were an echo of the other. They came so quickly the sound
of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second
and third shot I did see the president being hit."
If you're going to include everything she was sure of in that statement, then you have to include the first shot miss.
Plus we have this:
"I knew the first shot missed--I have never wavered on that.
And I see now that this is getting a lot of support. But I have
said that from day one--that the first shot missed. I've never
changed my mind on that."
-
Stop lawyering up the witness.
Z180s, Jackson is past the midpoint of the building. And he's still turned away from the Depository.
I can't see Jackson's "x" on CE347 can you? He said he was about half way on Houston and approximately the midpoint of "this building". In any event, it was after he tossed his film to the guy standing on the corner of Houston and Main. It was after that that he heard the shots. Here is a Youtube video of what he recalled in 1999:
Notice that he still remarked on the spacing of the shots almost 40 years later.
You mean this quote:
"One thing I am totally positive about in my own mind is how
many shots there were. And there were three shots. The
second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one
were an echo of the other. They came so quickly the sound
of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second
and third shot I did see the president being hit."
If you're going to include everything she was sure of in that statement, then you have to include the first shot miss.
Plus we have this:
"I knew the first shot missed--I have never wavered on that.
And I see now that this is getting a lot of support. But I have
said that from day one--that the first shot missed. I've never
changed my mind on that."
Yes. I have made the point many times that the two are inconsistent. If she heard the last two shots close together as she describes then her "hazy" impression that JFK was not hit by the first shot was wrong. If her "hazy" impression (which conflicts with the clear recollections of about 20 others) is correct, then her recollection of the last two shots being so close together is wrong. They cannot both be correct.
-
I can't see Jackson's "x" on CE347 can you? He said he was about half way on Houston and approximately the midpoint of "this building".
You don't mean midway to the next building along Houston? We'll be getting into the Z250s for the first shot. Gee, you working on another screwball pet theory?
In any event, it was after he tossed his film to the guy standing on the corner of Houston and Main. It was after that that he heard the shots. Here is a Youtube video of what he recalled in 1999:
Notice that he still remarked on the spacing of the shots almost 40 years later.
Jackson also remarks that the first shot occurred just after he tossed the film. That takes us back to his testimony about laughing at the wind taking the film. Dillard spoke about the reverberation being really bad there because of the tall buildings.
Yes. I have made the point many times that the two are inconsistent. If she heard the last two shots close together as she describes then her "hazy" impression that JFK was not hit by the first shot was wrong. If her "hazy" impression (which conflicts with the clear recollections of about 20 others) is correct, then her recollection of the last two shots being so close together is wrong. They cannot both be correct.
That's the problem. What makes you think your 20 cherry-picks had clear comprehension of the shot spanning in the midst of major distraction and confusion, and equally clear reconstruction in their memory?
-
LOL. Nowhere in that video does McDonald even say that Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.
Oh, yes, he does. If you pay attention to the video McDonald states that he "snapped the pistol" in other words he pulled the trigger. Innocent people certainly don't try to shoot their way out, now do they.
But Paul...
Iacoletti actually believes the snap could have been a theater seat springing to action as someone got up from it.
Brown actually believes that a click or a snap noise must be a trigger on a revolver being pulled.
But don't blame me for the idea -- blame Ray Hawkins.
Except that Hawkins did not say what you're falsely attributing to him. You're putting words in his mouth.
Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook. Right?
-
Except that Hawkins did not say what you're falsely attributing to him. You're putting words in his mouth.
Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook. Right?
You haven't actually established that he killed anybody, but nice try. Anything to frame your desired culprit, right? "Tried to shoot a cop". LOL.
I didn't falsely attribute anything.
By the way, it was also mentioned in the Dallas Morning News that earlier as Brewer and Burroughs "passed the back section of the middle aisle downstairs, they heard a seat snap or crack" (November 23, 1963), so according to that, those theater seats did make snapping noises.
-
You don't mean midway to the next building along Houston? We'll be getting into the Z250s for the first shot. Gee, you working on another screwball pet theory?
My "pet theory" is that the 22 witnesses who said that JFK acted as if he was hit by the first shot were not all experiencing simultaneous halucinations; that Hughes and Betzner were not halucinating when they said they exposed their film before the first shot; that 45 witnesses, including Jackson, were not halucinating when they recalled the 1......2...3 shot pattern; that dozens of witnesses in motorcade and along Elm were not having simultaneous halucinations as to where JFK was at the time of the first shot. That's my "pet theory".
Jackson also remarks that the first shot occurred just after he tossed the film. That takes us back to his testimony about laughing at the wind taking the film. Dillard spoke about the reverberation being really bad there because of the tall buildings.
So how does laughing at the corner affect his ability to hear the shots? He said he was looking forward and just had to look up to the the rifle in the 6th floor window just after the third shot. What is your "pet theory" as to how the incident at the corner prevented him from hearing the shot pattern that he still recalled 36 years later? Does your "pet theory" have any evidence to support it?
On the reverberation point, reverb is not echo. Reverb does not provide two distinct shot sounds. Besides, if people were confused by echos they would have reported MORE than 3 shots.
That's the problem. What makes you think your 20 cherry-picks had clear comprehension of the shot spanning in the midst of major distraction and confusion, and equally clear reconstruction in their memory?
How are you using the term "cherry picking"? If I was selectively choosing the witnesses who observed JFK's reactions to the first shot, please identify the witnesses who said otherwise. I am citing ALL those witnesses. If you disagree, then tell me who I am not including in my list of 22 witnesses who observed JFK immediately after the first shot (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF) that you think I should be including (besides Mary Woodward). I did not include Mary Woodward for two reasons: 1. she said things were a little hazy after the first shot but she did not think anyone was hit by it and 2. the second shot was followed rapidly by a third. 2 is inconsistent with 1. Since JFK is reacting to his neck wound 5 seconds before the last shot, if he had been hit on the only on the second shot, the last two shots could not have followed "rapidly".
-
By the way, it was also mentioned in the Dallas Morning News that earlier as Brewer and Burroughs "passed the back section of the middle aisle downstairs, they heard a seat snap or crack" (November 23, 1963), so according to that, those theater seats did make snapping noises.
Irrelevant, unless you can cite that article stating that Brewer or Burroughs said that the "seat snap or crack" sounded like the hammer or the trigger of a revolver.
-
Irrelevant, unless you can cite that article stating that Brewer or Burroughs said that the "seat snap or crack" sounded like the hammer or the trigger of a revolver.
You couldn't possibly get more subjective than that. Some witnesses heard a click or a snap. Other things were known to have caused clicks or snaps. Ergo, some witnesses hearing a a click or a snap (regardless of what they thought it sounded like) actually proves nothing.
-
You couldn't possibly get more subjective than that. Some witnesses heard a click or a snap. Other things were known to have caused clicks or snaps. Ergo, some witnesses hearing a a click or a snap (regardless of what they thought it sounded like) actually proves nothing.
Riiiiiight.
The click or snap of a revolver sounds the same as a theater seat's "click" or "snap".
LOL
-
You couldn't possibly get more subjective than that. Some witnesses heard a click or a snap. Other things were known to have caused clicks or snaps. Ergo, some witnesses hearing a a click or a snap (regardless of what they thought it sounded like) actually proves nothing.
Did anyone report hearing a thump along with a click or snap? You know, the sound that occurs when the seat hits its back.
-
Riiiiiight.
The click or snap of a revolver sounds the same as a theater seat's "click" or "snap".
LOL
Cool rebuttal bro. How do you know what the seats in Texas Theater sounded like when they snapped? How do you know it wasn't someone in the seats making the noise like Hawkins said?
Are you going with an argument from personal incredulity?
-
Cool rebuttal bro. How do you know what the seats in Texas Theater sounded like when they snapped? How do you know it wasn't someone in the seats making the noise like Hawkins said?
I am not claiming to know any of that.
What I am saying is that you're bat spombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy if you think a movie theater seat sounds like the clicking of a revolver's hammer and/or trigger.
Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook. Right?
-
What I am saying is that you're bat spombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy if you think a movie theater seat sounds like the clicking of a revolver's hammer and/or trigger.
Well, there's a compelling argument. ::)
You're bat spombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy if you think Oswald killed anybody. Gee, that makes it so easy...
But anything to convict your chosen culprit. Right?
-
Well, there's a compelling argument. ::)
You're bat spombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy if you think Oswald killed anybody. Gee, that makes it so easy...
But anything to convict your chosen culprit. Right?
You're all over the place.
The point is, when the click or snap was being discussed, you brought up the dumb idea that it could have been a theater seat.
Now THAT is desperate. If you want to appear desperate, then okay that is your right. I doubt that anyone agrees with you, though. I know even the kookiest kooks didn't chime in and have your back on that one.
Anyway, I'm going to eat. Moving on.
-
You're all over the place.
The point is, when the click or snap was being discussed, you brought up the dumb idea that it could have been a theater seat.
And it could have been. It could have been a lot of things. The fact that you find that dumb is meaningless.
Bon apetit.