Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: How Good Are People at Counting?  (Read 8509 times)

Online Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
How Good Are People at Counting?
« 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

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8329
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2018, 10:59:54 PM »
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.

Online Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2018, 04:44:16 AM »


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?

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2018, 05:05:54 AM »
I think it's the third time the gorilla example has been posted on the forum....I could be wrong.....how did I go?

Online Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2018, 05:56:13 AM »


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?

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2018, 07:35:15 AM »
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

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2018, 11:26:55 AM »
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.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8329
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2018, 06:10:51 PM »
Concede?

Yes.  It seems you are only willing to use the distracted witness excuse when witnesses say things you don't like.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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".

Quote
Why did he duck into a shoe store just when the police drove by?

That's just your assumption.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
How does one top that?

By actually basing your beliefs on evidence, not assumptions and handwaving.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 06:15:30 PM by John Iacoletti »

Online Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2018, 02:53:31 AM »

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.

Offline Chris Davidson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2018, 04:14:42 AM »
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."


 

Mobile View