|
 |
|
 |
|
Systematic Eyewitness Errors
|
|
On 1 Jun 2009 23:06:39 -0400, WhiskyJoe <...@pacbell.net
Systematic Eyewitness Errors
I am a skeptic, one who is generally
skeptical of reported phenomenon which
amply supported by eyewitness accounts,
but somehow always fails to be supported
by any strong physical evidence. And so
I am skeptical of reports of the amply
documented eyewitness supported
phenomenon like UFO's, ghosts, Bigfoot,
lake monsters, Medieval witches, etc.
In general, eyewitness testimony is
unreliable. Physical evidence is much
more reliable. That's why we are seeing
so many convicts being released from
prison who were proved innocent by DNA
evidence and who got put in jail in the
first place by generally honest but
mistaken eyewitness testimony.
Very often, people assume that
eyewitness testimony can be relied
on in some cases. While some admit
that if we only have one eyewitness,
that person can not be relied on,
since one person can be mistaken.
But it is statistically very unlikely
for many eyewitnesses to be mistaken.
So eyewitnesses are describing a suspect
and one person says they wore a red
shirt, two said it was green, one said
it was yellow and 22 said it was purple,
then it was a purple shirt. Period.
But this ignores the possibility that
there may be a systematic reason for
the error. Maybe the crime took place
at a dance party with "black lights"
and the suspect wasn't wearing a purple
shirt but a white shirt. Or maybe
22 people reported a white shirt,
taking into account the black lights
but the suspect was really wearing a
purple shirt.
A stronger example is a crowd watching
a magician. Now my believe is that
magicians use misdirection to mislead us,
just as they claim. So I could say
"I observed a magician used some trick
to make it appear a coin appeared in his
hand, etc." But, if I don't use my
beliefs to influence what I observe
what happened, I would have to say
"I saw a coin materialize out of thin
air in his hand, then the coin
dematerialized and then
re-materialized behind someone's ear."
And most observers would report the
same thing. But, of course, there is
a systematic reason for a high rate of
observer error. The magician is using
misdirection to mislead us.
I think there are clear signs of
systematic eyewitness errors at
Dealey Plaza.
****************************************
Systematic Eyewitness Errors, Example 1:
This is the classic Dealey Plaza
Systematic Eyewitness Error. It is
often reported that of the hundreds of
witnesses present, no one observed JFK
and Connally get wounded at the
same time.
This is a no brainer. Humans do not
have the eyes of a Chameleon.
One cannot focus one eye on JFK and the
other eye on Connally. Even looking at
the Zapruder film (the entire film,
not a special one that just covers
frames 226 and 227) and knowing what is
going to happen, I can't observe both
JFK and Connally both start to raise
their right arms in unison, even though
both did starting at Z226. The best I
can do is concentrate on JFK, observe
him start to react as he emerges from
behind the sign, then, on the next
view, concentrate on Connally and
observe him starting to react as he
emerges from behind the sign.
If any witness ever reports that they
saw two people react at the same time
to a wound, something must be off.
****************************************
Systematic Eyewitness Errors, Example 2:
Most witnesses say that immediately
after the first shot, JFK grabbed for
his throat. Clearly, they are referring
JFK's reactions starting at Z226.
However, particularly for witnesses who
were close to JFK, many report there was
a shot, there was no sign that anyone
was hit. Then, a few seconds later,
there was another shot and JFK grabbed
for his throat.
It seems it was very common for people
to miss hearing the first shot. Or it
was fairly common to imagine hearing an
early shot that did not occur.
I think there was an early shot that
most people did not hear, around Z153,
and that there is a systematic reason
for this error.
First of all, for people who report an
early shot, they sometimes say it sounded
flat, not as loud as the later shots.
And there is an obvious possible
explanation.
The sniper's nest was best for firing
after the limousine cleared the tree
and moved directly away, from about
Z240 to Z350. But Oswald may have fired
earlier, possibly because of a snap
decision, based on the limousine being
so close. If this happened, the vertical
firing angle is so steep, about
30 degrees, that Oswald may have been
stooping as he fired and the muzzle
did not extend out of the window.
This would definitely muffle the sound
some, particularly for people who were
not close to the limousine and did not
have a direct line of sight to the
muzzle of the limousine. Combined with
the noise of the crowd and the vehicles
and not being alert to danger, it's
possible many people may have missed
this sound.
For the people who heard an early shot,
like Connally and the Secret Service
agents in the trailing car, they were
close enough to JFK that they likely
had a clear line of sight to the muzzle
of the rifle, even if it did not extend
out of the room. This, I think is a good
explanation why so many Secret Service
agents heard an early shot, while most
witnesses did not.
****************************************
Systematic Eyewitness Errors, Example 3:
Shot Pattern.
Some witnesses report the shots were
somewhat evenly space out.
"Bang ... bang". Or as
"Bang ... bang ... bang".
But some say the last two shots were
quite close together, like
"Bang ... bang bang". Is that a likely
reason for systematic error?
Yes there is.
There are possible reasons why
eyewitnesses report the last two
shots as much closer together, even
though the shots probably came at
Z153, Z222 and Z312, making the pause
between the first shot and the second
3.8 seconds and the pause between the
second shot and the third 4.9 seconds.
First, the evidence for a shot at Z154,
while pretty good, is not as strong as
a shot at Z222 and Z312. So maybe the
first shot did come before Z133,
as Holland and Rush theorized,
although I doubt it. But if it did
come before Z133, that would account
for the shot pattern that is commonly
reported. So it is possible, that in
this case, the majority of the
eyewitnesses are correct.
It is also possible that time may seem
distorted once one realizes that shots
are being fired which may cause the
third shot to seem closer to the second.
Most people did not realize that shots
were being fired until after Z312.
Many eyewitnesses will say otherwise
but it's clear from the non reactions
before Z312 that most people did not
think shots were being fired until
then. And hardly anyone realized a
shot was fired before Z222. A minority
of people noticed and recognized that
JFK appeared wounded after Z222. Only
after Z312 did all observers realize
that shots had been fired. So it is
possible that one's perception of time
may be altered by the knowledge of
danger. So they might report the
second interval as being shorter due
to there knowledge or suspicion of
danger, or being closer to Z312 when
they definitely realized there
was danger.
Also, individual rifle shots, unlike
pistol shots, can easily be mistaken
for two shots. That is because rifle
bullets are super sonic. One can hear
the super sonic bullet as it rushes by,
followed by the sound of the muzzle
blast. This is a familiar phenomenon
to soldiers who are taught that when
they hear a "crack-thump" to ignore
the "crack", the sound of the
supersonic bullet and concentrate on
the "thump" which will tell them the
direction of the rifle.
For an observer near the limousine,
for the fatal headshot, the "crack"
would come about 0.11 seconds before
the "thump". This could be mistaken
for two different shots, "bang bang".
0.11 seconds would be the maximum
separation for the two sounds.
For observers further away, like
Mr. Zapruder, the "crack thump"
sounds would arrive at about the
same time and being so far from the
bullet, the "crack" would not be so
loud in any case. They would likely
report just one "bang" for that
final shot.
For the Z222 shot, the separation
between the "crack" and "thump"
would be a maximum of 0.08 seconds,
which might be too close together for
observers to report as a "bang bang".
And another reason for eyewitnesses
only reporting a single shot at frame
Z222 but a double shot at Z312, may be
that the shot at Z222 alerted them to
possible danger. And being more alert,
they noticed the double sound at Z312
and remembered it as being two different
shots, one right after the other.
In conclusion, there may be systematic
reasons for many observers reporting the
last shot as a double shot or for the
last two shots being closer together
than they really were. For some
witnesses, it may have been hearing
the "crack thump" at Z312 and confusing
this with being two shots. For others,
they may perceive time differently
if they suspect there is danger.
****************************************
Systematic Eyewitness Errors, Example 4:
Most Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses were not
identified and asked where the shots
came from. Most who were asked said
they could not tell. This is not
surprising because it can be confusing
to tell where a rifle shot came from.
Of those who were asked and who had an
opinion, a plurality said it came from
the general direction of the Oswald
sniper's nest. About 5 or 6 even said
they a rifle sticking out of a window
and reported seeing it soon after the
event. Almost as many reported the
shots came from the Grassy Knoll.
And a small minority reported the
shots came from elsewhere.
I think that likely, the reports of the
shooter on the Grassy Knoll was not as
a result of echoes, or of any sound,
but was based on what they saw.
The bullet exited the side of JFK's head.
And that is where the explosive wound
occurred within a few milliseconds after
the bullet exited. There was a spray of
organic matter headed toward the Grassy
Knoll. I think it would be natural for
observers to think a bullet caused a
"splash" like a rock thrown on a pond.
One police officer testifying to the
WC said he concluded a shot came from
the Grassy Knoll as a result of
observing JFK's head exploded.
I think that this could cause an
observer to remember that they "heard"
the shot came from the Grassy Knoll,
even though what really may have
happened is as a result of what they
saw, they concluded a shot came from
the Grassy Knoll and then thinking about
it later concluded that they must know a
shot came from the Grassy Knoll, because
of what they heard. And so they report
that they remember "hearing the shot
came from the Grassy Knoll."
The logical conclusion to draw from this
is not that a small plurality heard the
shots came from the Sniper's Nest over
that of the Grassy Knoll, therefore the
shots must have come from the Grassy
Knoll. Instead, it is important to
realize that eyewitness testimony is
unreliable. The failure of the majority
of the eyewitnesses to even agree on
where the shots came from amply confirm
that they are unreliable.
****************************************
Can we conclude that Alien abduction is
real because so many report the same
type of aliens, the Grays? No, we cannot.
There may be systematic errors. Namely,
the exposure through the media of
millions of people to Gray aliens.
Indeed, the earliest report of Gray
aliens is from a Science Fiction TV
show from the 1960's.
And so we must always keep in mind the
possibility of systematic errors so
even when there is a strong agreement
amount eyewitnesses, we must not
conclude that 90% cannot be wrong.
And physical evidence must trump
eyewitness testimony, no matter
how strong the eyewitness
testimony may be.
|
| |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
On 2 Jun 2009 20:16:02 -0400, yeuhd <...@gmail.com
On Jun 1, 11:06 pm, WhiskyJoe <...@pacbell.net
Not a plurality, a majority.
53.8% of earwitnesses said all shots came from the direction of the
Depository.
33.7% of earwitnesses said all shots came from the direction of the
grassy knoll or Triple Underpass*
7.7% of earwitnesses said all shots came from elsewhere
4.8% of earwitnesses said the shots came from two directions
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
* That number should be 32.7%. Officer Joe Murphy, standing on the
Stemmons Freeway overpass, said all the shots came from an easterly
direction, which from his position included both the knoll and the
Depository. He would need a new "knoll or Depository" category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 3 Jun 2009 13:34:43 -0400, Andrew Mason <...@spmlaw.ca
Your comparisons are rather strange. When are these phenomena
independently corroborated? Never. Well, except UFO's. Apparent UFO
phenomena are sometimes independently corroborated. If they are it is
because there was some real phenomenon that was observed - but never
flying saucers. If sightings of flying saucers or aliens are
"corroborated", there is inevitably collusion.
Why don't you compare it so witness accounts of real events? Courts deal
with these all the time. Give me one example of a case in which the vast
majority of witnesses independently recalled certain details and were
wrong in the same way. I can guarantee that you cannot find such an
example. There are cases of mistaken identity and the problem is, in every
case, that the identifications were not independent. They were all
influenced by faulty suggestive questioning and line-ups.
A popular myth. What evidence do you have to support that statement?
Wrong. In most cases they were put there by faulty "expert" evidence that
falsely contradicted real independent witnesses. That is the case in
almost every case in Canada where false convictions were found. In one
case, a pathologist was responsible for dozens of false convictions. In
every case, correct witness evidence was rejected. In the case of Guy Paul
Morin, bogus hair and fibre evidence was uses to contradict witness
evidence relating to his alibi that was proven to be correct. In the case
of Clayton Johnson who was convicted of killing his wife by beating her
based on bogus blood spattering evidence. In the US there were many
convictions based on bogus FBI bullet lead analyses. I am not aware of
any case in which truly independent witness evidence was shown to be false
in the same way.
Good point. That is why we have defence counsel to point these things out.
Where do you see that kind of effect in the JFK assassination?
Another very good example. But here the witnesses are not independently
mistaken. Their perceptions are being deliberately manipulated by the same
trick. What is the source of error in the JFK case?
Correct.
Well, they were only 2 feet apart. At 50 feet, that makes a pretty small
angle. The problem is not that no one noticed them reacting at the same
time. The problem is that the witnesses specifically saw that they
didn not. They said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moving left
and bringing his hands to his neck. JBC and Nellie were absolutely
adamant that JBC was not hit in the chest by that shot.
It is by no means "clear". We can't see what he did behind the sign.
Things are clear when reasonable people cannot disagree. Leave me aside.
The fact that the FBI, WC and HSCA differ from your view means it was
not clear.
Who said this??!! No one. Not one person. None.
Do you mean the shot that witnesses described as a loud firecracker or
"horrible ear-shattering noise" (Mary Woodward). Was that the sound that
no one heard?
This is just wrong. If "most" witnesses did not hear the first shot
where are they? Only 17 witnesses said they heard only two shots. 78
percent heard 3 (132 out of 178). See: D. M. Green, “Analysis of
Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy”, Report No. 4034, House Select Committee on Assassinations
Hearings, Vol. 8, p. 128 at page 142
Not really. Many witnesses said the shots were "real close", "in rapid
succession", "just about as fast as you can fire with a bolt action
rifle". There are 5 seconds between z223 and z313.
In other words, the witnesses are not recalling observations independently.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And we have legions of people wrongly convicted on
physical evidence as interpreted by "experts" to back that up.
Andrew Mason
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 3 Jun 2009 17:53:38 -0400, Osprey <...@gmail.com
<snip
In the Johnson case, the notion of "blood splattered everywhere" came from
the recollections of a woman who participated in the cleanup on the
family's behalf. No body else, police, medics, etc., reported "blood
everywhere"--just in the staircase area and floor at the foot of the
staircase. When Mrs. Johnson fell (backwards it was later determined by
consultant Linda Norton, a Dallas ME), she first landed with her head
pinned between the wall and stairs, the skull cracked and the momentum of
her body pulled it out again, causing the body to come to rest at the foot
of the stairs. Her husband was convicted because he was suspected of
pushing her down the stairs (or beating her death at the foot) and partly
because he remarried so shortly after the incident to a younger woman.
In this case, the eyewitness, whose story appeared later and resulted in
the belated arrest, was wrong (if one accepts Ms. Norton's foresnic
analysis). The original coroner had ruled the death accidental, Mr.
Johnson's trial overturned that, but the retrial confirmed the original
coroner's ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 3 Jun 2009 23:12:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
Why don't you watch the 48 Hours special on witnesses where ALL of the
witnesses made exactly the same misidentification.
As in the JFK case.
DOJ. Criminal law. Loftus.
Oswald was not allowed defense counsel.
Biased study.
Some said it sounded like an automatic or semi-automatic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 4 Jun 2009 10:36:58 -0400, WhiskyJoe <...@pacbell.net
Eyewitness Identification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
Innocence Project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project
Innocence Project:
http://innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
Eyewitness misidentification is the
single greatest cause of wrongful
convictions nationwide, playing a
role in more than 75% of convictions
overturned through DNA testing.
One may argue "Well, you can't trust
everything on wikipedia" but I find
it hard to believe that the Innocence
Project website is totally off.
When they say:
Eyewitness misidentification is the
single greatest cause of wrongful
convictions nationwide, playing a
role in more than 75% of convictions
overturned through DNA testing.
I don't think they are off.
The enemy that the people of the
"Innocence Project" are most
concerned with is eyewitness
errors. Yes, other errors are
possible, like faulty blood
splatter analysis, etc. but
eyewitness errors seem to be
the biggest problem.
***************************************
Now, one can say, well, that shows
errors in witness identification,
not shot timing.
But come on. Let's say I never went to
a movie or watched TV but one day,
I was robbed by Jim Carrey. I go to a
police lineup. Jim Carrey is not in the
line up, but Michael Douglas is.
I report that Michael Douglas was the
one who robbed me and make a convincing
appearance in court and so Michael
Douglas goes to jail. Years later, DNA
tests prove that Michael Douglas is
innocent and Jim Carrey was guilty.
Now, would people think I was a
reliable witness? It does not good to
say, well, the lighting was dim and
I didn't get a real good look. That
doesn't explain why I was absolutely
convinced that it was Michael Douglas.
If I was reliable, I should have been
adamant that I just couldn't tell.
It would be clear that I had a hazy
image of the suspect. But after the
line up, my memory was modified so that
the hazy image of Jim Carrey got replaced
by a crystal clear image of Michael
Douglas.
And experience has shown, that if this
story played out, that I was not an
unusually bad witness. It is very
common for average people to be bad
witnesses. It happens all the time.
We think of ourselves as very good,
witnesses but we are really bad.
But, if this happened, and I claimed
that I heard three loud noises and
the first two were further apart than
the last two, would people think this
must be true? If I could mistake
Jim Carrey for Michael Douglas, than
miss estimating time intervals would
sound very plausible.
***************************************
From David Reitzes webpage:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
While many witnesses think that the
first shot wounded JFK and caused him
to reach for his throat, this website
shows:
Billy Joe Martin, Stavis Ellis,
William G. Lumpkin, Glen Bennett,
and Mary Woodward think they heard and
even saw an early first shot miss,
followed by a second shot that wounded
JFK and caused him to reach for his
throat.
Connally's testimony is also consistent
with an early shot missed and based on
Connally's reported actions:
* heard shot from behind (and right)
* turned sharply to the right
* failed to see gunman
* failed to see JFK
* turned to face forward
* started to face toward the left
* first noticed that he was wounded
combined with the Zapruder film,
is best explained by a missed
shot before Z162, and is consistent
with Connally is wounded at Z222,
if one accepts the possibility that
the first major pain that Connally
felt was when he tried to inhale,
which could have been by about
Z232, when he had turned past his
mid-line.
If the first shot was muffled, by
the barrel of the rifle remaining in
the room and not extending out the
window, unlike the second and third
shot, then it seems possible that
the policemen and secret service
agents who were closest to JFK
and who were presumably the most
alert of the witnesses, may have
paid more attention to the first
shot and remembered it better.
So it is possible that most witnesses
heard a muffled noise from Z153, didn't
think much of it, continued to watch
the limousine. Then they heard a
second shot at Z222. The loudness of
this shot combined with JFK's actions,
may have alerted them to possible
danger. Their perception of time may
have been altered.
***************************************
Well, when I look at the Zapruder film,
I can't tell if they are reacting
together or not, even though there
is only a small angle between them.
I simply cannot see both at the same
time, in one viewing. I can't focus
my left eye of JFK and my right on
Connally. I can only look at one or
the other. And all witnesses, all
witnesses, would have had the same
problem. And unlike me, they were not
even trying to look at both at the same
time to see if they both react at the
same time.
But, when I focus on just JFK, it seems
he starts to react just after emerging
from behind the sign, by raising his
hands, which he held high until Z312.
And when I focus on just Connally,
it seems he starts to react just after
emerging from behind the sign, by
raising his right hand, as high as JFK
did. And his torso seems to react and
his coat seem to react as well.
Marcel Marceau could not have done
a better impression of a man who has
just been shot in the chest and right
wrist and had his act timed perfectly
with JFK's reactions.
And a study of the individual frames
show JFK and Connally both start
to raise their right hand at Z225-Z226.
I think it was Nellie who was adamant.
Connally said it was possible that
JFK was hit by the same bullet that
hit him. Connally, of course, could
not tell, since he never saw JFK
nor heard him during the entire
Z133-Z312 interval.
Connally looked, not at a stabilized
version of the Zapruder film in slow
motion. Not even at the Zapruder film
non stabilized at regular speed.
He only looked at still frames and he
guessed he was wounded at Z230. That
is, he thinks he was first showing
signs of being wounded at Z230.
But I don't think he was adamant about
it. And he said he may have been wounded
by the same bullet as JFK.
Only Nellie was adamant. But even if:
* Nellie had special "Chameleon eyes",
she was capable of watch one person
with her left eye and a different
person with her right.
* the Zapruder film showed that she
was clearly watching both JFK and
Connally all during the Z153-Z312
interval.
I still wouldn't accept her testimony
as the last word on the subject. She
would still be an eyewitness and
eyewitnesses can be mistaken.
However, she was not a Chameleon.
And the Zapruder film that during
the critical time, in the Z220's,
she was not watching JFK. Nor was
she watching Connally. In Z230,
enough of her forehead is visible
to show that she was facing
straight ahead. Using her to tell
if both JFK and Connally were
wounded in the Z220's does not
make sense.
Look at an enlargement of Z230:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z230.jpg
Yes, Kellerman's head is in the way,
but enough of her forehead is visible
above his head to show that she was
facing forward. She does not start
to look at Connally nor JFK until
after Connally is yelling "No, No, No."
What the Zapruder film shows, is JFK
and Connally seem to react in the Z220's,
and both reactions are consistent with
being wounded. In the Z240's, Connally
seems to shout, as he testified.
Somewhat curiously, Nellie swiveled her
head past her husband who was yelling
to look at JFK. Actually, this makes
some sense because if shots were being
fired, JFK was the logical target. She
saw that JFK was wounded. She then turned
her head to look at her husband and
perceived for the first time that he was
wounded. She mistakenly assumed he
couldn't have been wounded while sitting
next to her so he must have been wounded
right then. So she thought first JFK was
wounded, then her husband.
And she became convinced that JFK was
wounded first. Just like all those
witnesses who became convinced that
one of the men in the line up was the
criminal and remain adamant about that
the rest of their life.
But with her looking at neither JFK nor
her husband in the Z220's and Z230's,
her opinion cannot carry much weight.
***************************************
As far as our central issue, the timing
of the shots I am going to ignore, for
now, the possibility that hearing two
separate sounds, first the crack of the
supersonic bullet, followed by the
"thump" of the muzzle blast, caused
some eyewitnesses to mistake one shot
for two.
Instead, I'm going to assume the
witnesses heard all three shots as
one shot each. Could there have been
a distortion of time perception?
Could they have judged time differently:
between Z153-Z222 - when they had only
head one bang, possibly muffled, but
were still busy watching a couple
of celebrities
than
between Z222-Z312 - when they now had
two suspicious sounds, maybe the one
at Z222 louder and JFK seems to grab
for his throat
Is this not possible?
I cannot easily accept, the notion that
it doesn't matter if one is:
* quietly relaxing
* listening to Mozart
* studying a book intently
* in the immediate presence of a couple
famous celebrities for the only time
in one's life
* is aware that a shot may have just
been fired
"It doesn't matter. A five second interval
is always going to seem like a five second.
Not a three second interval. Not a seven
second interval. No, it's always going to
seem like a five second interval."
No, I cannot buy that.
So, during Z153-Z222, most eyewitnesses
were in one mode, excitedly watching a
couple of celebrities pass by closely.
During Z222-Z312, most eyewitnesses
may have at least suspected that
a shot may have been fired.
I would be amazed if this did not have
any effect on the perception of time.
It is quite conceivable that they may
perceive the 3.7 interval between Z162
and Z222 as extra long, or the 4.9
interval between Z222 and Z312 as
extra short. Or maybe both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 2 Jun 2009 20:45:33 -0400, pjspeare <...@AOL.COM
On Jun 1, 8:06 pm, WhiskyJoe <...@pacbell.net
Whiskyjoe, you are quite correct in your basic premise...that the
differences in opinion reflect systematic errors. However, your attempts
at rationalizing the 153, 222, 312 shooting scenario are off- base.
For one, NO ONE watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot saw him
calmly wave to the crowd after the shot. No one. From this we can gather
that there was no first shot miss.
For two, the effect of danger on time estimation has been studied. Many
times. And it has been shown that time slows down for those involved in a
life-threatening event. By roughly 50%. This suggests that the last two
shots were actually MUCH closer together than the first shot was to the
second, and not the opposite, as you are proposing.
I discuss the eyewitnesses and what can be gathered from their statements
in chapters 5-9 at patspeer.com. This study led me to a new understanding
of the shooting scenario. Feel free to point out any errors.
As far as your discussion of eyewitness evidence vs. physical
evidence...while it is true that physical evidence is generally more
reliable, it is not true that expert opinion of the meaning of this
evidence is necessarily more reliable. As a result, you `can not simply
trust the opinion of one or two experts and say that their opinions
automatically trump what was observed by others. On my webpage, I discuss
the HSCA trajectory analysis, and prove it to be a shallow and inaccurate
fraud. I also have a video proving that the HSCA's top medical expert had
little understanding of one of the autopsy photos, and how it related to
Kennedy's body. Physical evidence, when interpreted by such men, is not
as reliable as eyewitness evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 2 Jun 2009 22:31:16 -0400, WhiskyJoe <...@pacbell.net
From David Reitzes webpage:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
Billy Joe Martin:
I was looking at the president when the
first shot was fired. It missed.
The second shot hit the president in
the back, and the third hit him in
the head.
Stavis Ellis:
That's when the first shot was fired.
I was looking directly at the President,
and I saw the concrete burst into a
cloud of dust when that bullet hit
the curb. . . . Then, while looking
back at the President, I heard the
second shot. The President became
rigid and grabbed his neck.
William G. Lumpkin says:
As the President started down Elm ...
that was the same time the shooting
started. ... The first shot apparently
missed the limousine as it hit the curb,
not too far from where [some onlookers]
were standing. The second and third
shots hit the President from the rear.
Glen Bennett of the Secret Service:
At this point I heard what sounded like
a firecracker. I immediately looked ...
towards the President who was seated in
the right rear seat of his limousine
open convertible. At the moment I
looked at the back of the President
I heard another firecracker noise and
saw the shot hit the President about
four inches down from the right shoulder.
Mary Woodward, a reporter for the
Dallas Morning News, wrote an account
of her recollections. She stated that,
while her memory was "a little hazy"
regarding events once the shooting
began, "I don't believe anyone was hit
with the first bullet. The President
and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked
around, as if they too didn't believe
the noise was coming from a gun."
"Then after a moment's pause there was
another shot and I saw the President
start slumping in the car."
****************************************
Yes, it's true. None reported JFK as
smiling and waving nor noted what color
tie JFK was wearing. But after a brief
glance to see if he looks wounded,
they likely were preoccupied with
wondering if that really was a shot
they heard and may have started looking
for a gunman. Many of these witnesses
were behind JFK and could not see him
smile.
And it's possible some of them may have
notice him smile or wave after the first
shot, but chose not to volunteer this
information, since, in their mind, it
might make JFK look foolish. Remember,
there are all sorts of reasons one may
encounter "Systematic Eyewitness Errors."
****************************************
Now, all these witnesses may definitely
be mistaken. But there are definitely
witnesses who think the first shot
missed. And, yes, it's true, none
reported that immediately after the
first shot, JFK waved again, and
smiled, but they are definitely
"First Shot Missed" witnesses.
****************************************
And of course, Governor Connally stated
he heard a shot behind him, turned to
his right look back, didn't turn quite
far enough to see JFK, did not see a
shooter, turned to his left and became
aware he had just been shot. Unless one
excepts the highly questionable argument
that Connally had not yet been shot in
the Z220's, nor Z230's nor Z250's,
indeed, never, since he never turned
forward again after then, his turn to
look over his right shoulder to check
on the sound of the first shot that
hadn't hit him yet, starts in the
Z160's, not in the Z240's.
If Governor Connally did not start to
look back over his right shoulder to
check on the sound of a rifle shot
in the Z160's, exactly when did this
motion start?
Governor Connally may be mistaken,
like any eyewitness, but he should
definitely count as a "Early First Shot
- before Z162 - Which Missed" witness,
with the caveat that he did not see JFK
so he cannot confirm nor refute if JFK
was wounded by that first shot. But
Connally was not wounded by that first
shot, nor did he noticed any damage to
the limousine.
****************************************
I've never believed the HSCA on anything,
certainly not on their trajectory
analysis. Not for their Z190, through
the leafs SBT trajectory. Nor for
their wacky Z312 diagrams. They were
too much into making new and
startling discoveries.
****************************************
Wow, a study of people who are noted
intervals of let's say three sounds,
with sudden danger right after the
second sound?
I would like to see a detailed article
on these studies. And also a detailed
study of time perception when one is
viewing a celebrity with little
awareness of danger, like Z153-Z222.
Maybe time really seems to slow down
then?
I've done no study, but I've got
over 30 skydive jumps. And once, my
chute delayed opening what could not
have been more than a couple seconds.
Can't be more than a couple of seconds
because the pilot chute was in a partial
vacuum behind my back, not an uncommon
occurrence. The instant one moves,
the vacuum is broken and the chute
starts to deploy. And I can tell you,
nothing seemed to move in slow motion,
one moment I was in a routine fall
and had just pulled the main chute.
The next instant, the startling
realization of sudden danger, the next
moment, my main chute open with my hand
groping for the reserve chute handle
without even thinking about it.
Should have just tried moving an arm
first, to break a possible partial vacuum,
then cutaway the main chute, then gone
gone for the reserve handle. But it's
hard to think clearly when your reacting
automatically and not aware your taking
any action at all.
In any case, sudden realization of danger,
danger passed before I knew it, even though
it must have taken a second or two for my
main chute to deploy before I would notice
it. It did not seem that time passed slowly
to me. I think that for me, three seconds
seemed like one second.
Maybe for an Astronaut, time moves slowly
in a period of sudden danger, but I
suspect for most people, it moves pretty
fast, sometimes too fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Whiskyjoe, Reitzes cherry-picks his witnesses for the first shot miss.
When one studies the complete statements of these witnesses, and
compares them with the photographic record, it is quite clear they are
describing a first shot hit. Some of the statements, moreover, are
fabrications created by a former Dallas Sheriff.
For example: B.J. Martin:
B.J. Martin rode his motorcycle on the far left behind Jackie Kennedy.
(4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H289-293): “one of
the agents got off of the car after the first shot…I looked to my
right (after the first shot)…I looked at the President after I heard
the (first) shot and he was leaning forward—I could see the left side
of his face. At the time he had no expression on his face” (Then I
heard) “Two more shots…immediately after the first shot I saw him (the
President) and after that I couldn’t see him.” (2-14-69 testimony in
the trial of Clay Shaw) “after we turned onto Elm Street I heard what
I thought was a shot and then I heard, I looked back to my right and
two more shots or what I thought to be two more shots I heard…(Asked
if he saw the effects of the third shot) “No, sir, I did not…All
during the shots I was looking to my left and right trying to find out
where the shots were coming from…it was after the third shot it had
almost came to a stop, it was going very slow.” (As quoted by Fred
Newcomb in an unpublished manuscript, Murder from Within, 1974) ""You
could smell the gunpowder…you knew he wasn't far away. When you're
that close you can smell the powder burning, why you - you've got to
be pretty close to them…you could smell the gunpowder…right there in
the street." (The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer D “I was
looking at the President when the first shot was fired. It missed.
The second shot hit the President in the back, and the third shot hit
him in the head.”
Analysis: As all the agents remained on the back-up car until after
frame Z-255, (as demonstrated in the Altgens photo) and as Martin
claims to have heard only one shot when an agent (Clint Hill) jumped
off the back-up car, he heard but one early shot. Although he later
said he thought the first shot missed, Martin’s original testimony
that the President was leaning forward after the first shot (after
160, the President is smiling and waving) is a strong indication that
the first shot hit and occurred after frame 190. The last comments by
Martin for The Kennedy Assassination Tapes are not to be trusted. The
book’s writer, J. C. Bowles, (who would become the long-time Sheriff
of Dallas County) was determined to show everyone that the DPD did not
stand by the HSCA’s conclusion that a second shooter was likely. After
all, talk of conspiracy would inevitably turn to suspicion of the
Dallas Police Department itself, seeing as they had helplessly stood
by while Ruby killed Oswald. Perhaps Martin, who is described in the
book but not named, simply told Bowles what he wanted to hear. Or
perhaps Bowles added to his statements, which could explain why he
published the statements without names.
Example 2: Stavis Ellis:
Stavis Ellis was one of the motorcycle officers out in front of the
lead car. (HSCA Vol. XII, p.23 “On August 5, 1978, the committee
received information from former Dallas policeman Stavis Ellis that
Ellis had also seen a missile hit the ground in the area of the
motorcade…Ellis said he rode on a motorcycle alongside the first car…
approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the car carrying President
Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of Elm
Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy’s car and saw debris
come up from the ground at a nearby curb. Ellis thought it was a
fragment grenade. Ellis also said that President Kennedy turned around
and looked over his shoulder. The second shot then hit him, and the
third shot “blew his head up.” (The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979)
Officer A “when the first shot was fired, I was looking directly at
the President, and I saw the concrete burst into a cloud of dust when
the bullet hit the curb. I noticed, too, that with the shot, some
people started running in every direction, while several people hit
the ground…Then while looking back at the President, I heard the
second shot. The President became rigid and grabbed his neck. It
also seemed like the limousine stopped or almost stopped, and agents
from the following car started running toward the President’s
limousine. The third shot hit the President in the head.” (No More
Silence p.142-l53, published 1998) “Just as I turned around, then the
first shot went off. It hit back there…I could see where the shot
came into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit concrete
or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a
white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete…I thought
there had been some people hit back there as people started falling. I
thought either some crank had thrown a big “Baby John” firecracker and
scared them causing them to jump down or else a fragmentation grenade
had hit all those people. In any case they went down! Actually I
think they threw themselves down in anticipation of another shot. As
soon as I saw that, I turned around and rode up beside the chief’s car
and BANG!...BANG!, two more shots went off, three shots in all!”
Analysis: Ellis is a poster child for Selective Attribution
Syndrome. Both conspiracy theorists and lone nut theorists alike love
to use his comments about seeing something hit the curb as evidence
for a first shot miss. But they should read on. He says that as this
happened people began running everywhere. That they began falling...
He is therefore describing the head shot. What he saw hit the curb
then was quite possibly the skull fragment observed flying through the
air by Charles Brehm and later found in the street by Harry Holmes and
A.D. McCurley. If this is so, and he was describing the head shot,
then Ellis’s description of Kennedy reaching for his neck and the
third shot striking the President in the head would appear to be more
an assertion of what he believes happened, then what he saw happen.
Sure enough, in Ellis’s statements to Larry Sneed in No More Silence,
he admits he turned around after the first shot and therefore could
not have seen what he is purported to have seen in Bowles’ book. His
throwing in the “Bang Bang” at the end was probably poetic license but
possibly a reflection that he did indeed hear one or two shots after
the head shot. Not surprisingly, the Bell and Daniel films prove that
Ellis was nowhere near the lead car at the time of the shots.
Example 3: Bill Lumpkin
William Lumpkin rode beside Officer Ellis in front of the lead car.
(The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer B. “At first I
thought it was a motorcycle backfiring, as they were heating up. The
first shot apparently missed the limousine as it hit the curb, not too
far from where they (Mary Moorman and Jean Hill) were standing. The
second and third shots hit the President from the rear. At the time,
I was facing east on Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left,
and the corner of the stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I
saw nothing on that hill that looked in any way suspicious. I’m
absolutely positive that there were only three shots, that they all
came from back up Elm Street from the right rear of the President’s
limousine, and that no one was shot from the grassy knoll.” (No More
Silence, p.154-161, published 1998) “we had turned off of Main Street
onto Houston for one block, then over to Elm Street, then turned back
left, and we were stopped at the time before we heard the shots. When
the shots occurred I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring. I heard
three distinct bangs with none of them being together or anything like
that. There’s been conflicting reports where all the noise came
from. From where I was it was behind me…I thought it was a motorcycle
backfiring at first, till I turned back and saw the commotion in the
President’s convertible. I wasn’t sure at the time what it was, but
it later turned out it was his wife on the back. Then Chaney rode up
to Curry and probably told him that the President had been shot. We
were still stopped at the time, and then Chief Curry comes on and says
“Let’s go, boys!” We went under the triple underpass and took the
entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway.”
Analysis: very, very disturbing. Lumpkin’s statements suggest once
again that the Kennedy Assassination Tapes was a dishonest book
presenting deliberately distorted recollections of the assassination.
(Was this why Bowles failed to identify his witnesses by name?) While
in Bowles’ book Lumpkin says that he was facing east by the grassy
knoll when the shots were fired, and that the first shot “apparently”
missed—which would seem to be his admission that this is what he heard
from Ellis--and that the second and third shots hit the President from
the rear, Lumpkin told Sneed that he only turned around after the last
shot in time to see Jackie climbing out onto the trunk! As stated,
the Bell and Daniel films prove that Lumpkin and Ellis were nowhere
near the lead car when the shots rang out. That Bowles, who was the
Communications Supervisor for the DPD, published such lies is
disturbing. That soon after the publication of his book Bowles became
Dallas County Sheriff is even more disturbing.
As far as your assertion that time speeds up during traumatic
events... oy vey.
On Jun 2, 7:31 pm, WhiskyJoe <...@pacbell.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 4 Jun 2009 12:24:06 -0400, bigdog <...@yahoo.com
It isn't a matter of cherry picking witnesses that is the issue. It is
the fact that anyone and everyone is able to cherry pick witnesses to
present diametrically opposing points of view. You can make a case for
either a first or second shot miss, depending on which witnesses you
select. You can make a case for evenly spaced shots, the first two
closer together, or the last two closer together depending on the
witnesses you select. That in itself demonstrates the unreliability of
witness recollections. It is the reason no sound theory can be based
primarily on witness recollections when there are significant groups
of witnesses offering mutually exclusive accounts.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. We have one reliable
witness. Abraham Zapruder's camera. That witness has perfect recall.
That witness's story never changes. That witness gives us a gold mine
of information. Unfortunately, that witness was also deaf. The only
clue we have regarding sound is the observable reactions of those in
the film and their recollections. Those recollections must be weighed
against what is observed in the Z-film. If those recollections are
consistent with what is in the Z-film, it adds to their credibility.
If they are at odds with what the Z-film recorded, then it is a
certainty that those recollections are faulty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|