JFK Assassination Forum

Actually. studies have shown that humans are very accurate in recalling salient details.  Salience is measured by the proportion who recalled a certain detail of an event. Where more than 50% note a certain detail more than 90% consistently get it correct (Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony):


Apparently, it does it very well. Over 80% accurately recalled three shots.  No one told them in advance there would be shots.
Why do you think memory is very imprecise?
One looks to others and sees what they recall. If they are all consistent then it is very likely accurate.
How fo you know if your interpretation of what Bennett said is accurate?

Because I have competent reading comprehension.

Yes, humans can do that. You're just not very good at it.

Actually. studies have shown that humans are very accurate in recalling salient details.  Salience is measured by the proportion who recalled a certain detail of an event. Where more than 50% note a certain detail more than 90% consistently get it correct (Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony):

This is the part you don't understand. The human brain does not make precise recordings like that.

Apparently, it does it very well. Over 80% accurately recalled three shots.  No one told them in advance there would be shots.

At that point he was operating with a very imprecise memory. Nothing against Jacks. That's just being human. What he provided was an educated guess, and not a very accurate one.

Why do you think memory is very imprecise?

If only you had proof Jacks accurately remembered precisely where the car was when he heard the first sound.

One looks to others and sees what they recall. If they are all consistent then it is very likely accurate.

Bennett was not looking at JFK when he heard the first shot. The first shot is what caused him to look at JFK. He then saw the SECOND shot hit JFK below his right shoulder. That is the only way to interpret what Bennett said without twisting his words.
He didn't have to wait four seconds. He turned to look at JFK as after hearing the first shot. Then he saw the second shot strike. That's two separate shots no matter how you slice it.

How fo you know if your interpretation of what Bennett said is accurate?   

Not to sidetrack this too much (but I guess I am anyway), what's interesting for me in the article is how reticent Lane appeared to be in revealing what Garrison supposedly told him. That's not how Lane operated.

My guess is that Garrison's "revelations" put Lane in a dilemma. Garrison believed that Oswald was one of the conspirators; viz., had attended the meeting where the assassination was planned, brought the rifle that was used in the shooting. That is, Oswald was guilty. But it was Lane's view, from my reading, that Oswald was an American Dreyfus. He was innocent from beginning to end (the middle too). He wasn't involved in any way in the assassination. Garrison's "discoveries" then presented him with a major problem. If he reveals them then his work defending Oswald is called into question. If he refutes Garrison on Oswald, says he's wrong, then Garrison cuts him off from any inside information. Best option: show a little conspiracy leg but not too much.

Thus Lane's shyness - not something he was known for - in revealing in any details on what Garrison told him particularly any involving Oswald.

Just to add here: Tom Bethell was one of Garrison's investigators. He later left in disagreement over what Garrison was doing. In a conversation with Lane, Bethell recounts the following exchange:

"At one point I told Lane that there was a certain irony in his supporting Garrison, because he had supposedly been retained by Oswald's mother to defend (posthumously) her son. Garrison's case against Shaw, I reminded Lane, is contingent upon Oswald's guilt since Shaw is accused of conspiring with Oswald. Lane's reply was: "I have never maintained that Oswald is innocent. Nowhere in ‘Rush to Judgement," do I say that Oswald is innocent."

I'll leave it to others to conclude whether Lane was being disingenuous or not (me: he was).

9/11 truthers and moon landing deniers should be lumped together with flat earthers. None of them have the sense they were born with.

Yes, but at least they're pretty harmless compared to Trump voters.