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.
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.
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.
