|
|
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.
|