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

Author Topic: How Good Are People at Counting?  (Read 8508 times)

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2018, 08:06:40 AM »
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.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8329
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2018, 05:10:12 PM »
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.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3009
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2018, 05:29:10 PM »
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?

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • SPMLaw
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2018, 05:42:08 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote

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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 06:42:29 PM by Andrew Mason »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8329
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2018, 06:11:04 PM »
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.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8329
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2018, 06:17:33 PM »
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.


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3009
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2018, 06:45:29 PM »

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.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8329
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2018, 06:47:20 PM »
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.

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2491
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2018, 07:08:51 PM »
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

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2491
Re: How Good Are People at Counting?
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2018, 07:17:56 PM »
That's totally different, because Joe thinks Oswald tried to shoot a cop in the theater.







JohnM

 

Mobile View