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.
You make an assumption that the 100 viewers of the film did not talk to each other. But how could you know that? How do you know the witnesses at Dealey Plaza did not influence each other? One man might influence the opinions of several, who may influence the opinions of several others. One man who seems to know what he is talking about, may insist the last two shots were on top of each other might tell several people about what he heard. While none of the ?Even spacing? witnesses talked about this.
You admit that sometimes, this ?Find the Truth by seeing what the majority thinks? breaks down. But it doesn?t matter, because you can use your judgement to tell when it did, or it likely did, break down. You can tell that if 95 people don?t recall a man in a gorilla suit, but 5 do, that this is a special exception.
Even if this is true, this Great Principle is not a great principle, if the majority of the witnesses can be way off in some cases. How can we tell which examples violate this great principle? Can we rely on your intuition?
Let?s take the gorilla film example. You say you can tell what happened, because if 95 people don?t recall a man in a gorilla suit, but 5 do, you can logically conclude that there must have been a man in a gorilla suit. Because it is unlikely that 5 people would see something so off the wall and all saw the same thing.
But does this work in general? Suppose there wasn?t a man in a gorilla suit. The film showed two teams, one in white basketball uniforms, the other in black basketball uniforms. In the middle of the practice, a man in some black clothes with a black hat walked across. If 5 people reported that one of the men was not wearing a basketball uniform, would this be so off the wall that we could expect you to conclude that the 95 witnesses were wrong and the 5 witnesses were right?
Or let?s go with the original gorilla film. 95 views report nothing unusual but 5 report there was a black gorilla. Can we really deduce there must have been a man in a gorilla suit? Maybe one the views thought he saw a gorilla in the last second of the film. And he told other people that he saw a man in a gorilla suit. He could be so convincing, that some other people might believe him. In interviews taken down later that day, 5 people might report seeing a man in a gorilla suit. What you assumed was 5 independent events weren?t really independent events at all. The error of all 5 people was caused by the error of just one man.
And in the Dealey Plaza witnesses, you conclude the majority in a list of witnesses reporting the limousine stopped or almost stopped, you just claim the list is faulty. Without providing us with a better list.
It seems that whenever a failure of the ?Majority must be right? witness theory, you do special pleading with each example. The gorilla film is not a problem because you can use your special analysis to spot a special exception. The majority of the witnesses report the limousine stopping or almost stopping, contradicting the Zapruder films, and all other films, is just the case of a bad list. That is what your judgment tells you. While your judgment tells you that the list of the ?Spacing of the Shots? witnesses is a good list and should be trusted.
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.
No. I would not be comfortable with going with either the 95 ?non-gorilla? witnesses nor the 5 ?gorilla? witnesses. I do not trust witnesses.
But a man who relies on the ?Majority opinion of the witnesses? would be wrong. Unless he had some special intuition that told him when to apply this principle and when not to.
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.
The observers of the gorilla film failed to do what one would think they should easily do, spot the gorilla. Because they were concentrating on something else, counting the number of passes the white team made to each other. Similarly, the Dealey Plaza witnesses may have failed to do what one would think they should easily do, tell us how many shots were fired, the spacing of the shots, the speed of the limousine. Because they were concentrating on something else. Hoping to catch the eye of the President or the First Lady. Trying to remember their likely one and only close up view of a President and First Lady.
As a final aside, how could the shot spacing witnesses be explained? Perhaps the witnesses were distracted, but not during the entire event. After the fatal headshot, they realized something terrible happened. The remembered the previous 5 seconds pretty well, from 5 to 10 seconds not so well, and over 10 seconds not well at all. The could have forgetting the first ?backfire? or ?firecracker?, remembered the second shot vaguely, the last shot rather well, with it?s ?Crack-Thump?. Hence becoming a ?3 shot ? last two shots close together? witness.
