How Good Are People at Counting?

[Colin Crow]

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.
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.
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.

Outstanding post

[Joe Elliott]

Questions for Andrew Mason


Someone could test eyewitnesses by various means. They might have a basketball practice where a man in a gorilla suit walks across frame. Or maybe have just a man in ordinary dark clothes walk across the frame.


Using the Principle ?Majority Views of the Witnesses?, of making use of what the majority of witnesses observe, what can one logically conclude and briefly explain why:



Question 1:

If 100 people observe a basketball practice and 5 people observer a man in a gorilla suit but 95 do not, what can one logically conclude?



Question 2:

If 100 people observe a basketball practice and 5 people observer a man not wearing a basketball uniform but 95 do not, what can one logically conclude?



Question 3:

Is the filming of the gorilla in the basketball practice an example of distracted witnesses?



Question 4:

Is the assassination of the President Kennedy an example where most of witnesses were distracted?



Question 5:

Do cases of distracted witnesses present a problem for the Principle of ?Majority Views of the Witnesses??

[Bill Chapman]

They didn't seem to have a problem noticing a much smaller lunch bag.

You mean the lunch bag that was found on the top of the barricade?
And the gun bag that was found folded up between boxes?

Those bags?

[Bill Chapman]

Of course the lunch bag could belong to the assassin, it was found in the SN. As for the long bag it was found between boxes by Montgomery after he and Johnson were instructed by Fritz to guard the SN. That clearly explains why no one saw it until he extracted the folded bag from between the boxes. If so, why would the Johnson and Montgomery feel the need to lie to the WC?

Where did he lie? (I've just quickly skimmed through his testimonies and pulled this up, so I might have missed something)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/montgom1.htm

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.

[John Iacoletti]

But Paul...

Iacoletti actually believes the snap could have been a theater seat springing to action as someone got up from it.

Brown actually believes that a click or a snap noise must be a trigger on a revolver being pulled.

But don't blame me for the idea -- blame Ray Hawkins.

[John Iacoletti]

Oh I see, so Oswald was trying to fire a warning shot! Nice one!

You haven't demonstrated that Oswald did anything with that revolver.

Who the hell do you think you are, I go by the evidence!

No, you state your conclusions as facts.

Oswald's rifle bag had Oswald's prints, Oswald lied about where he put the package and Oswald lied about the contents of the package.

Says the guy who can't even show that a rifle was ever in that bag.

Oswald bought C2766, was photographed with C2766 and a rifle with serial number C2766 was found at Oswald work, the same work where Oswald pissbolted at 12:33.

Those are conclusions based on your faulty characterization of the actual evidence.

Tom resorted to insults as a way to strengthen a weak argument whereas I just shortened your alphabetic surname to something easier to type and in no way intended it as an insult. A huge difference!

That's hysterical.  Do you think anybody is going to buy that?

What like Markham being called "Miss Screwball"? -sigh-

Take that up with Joseph "was there a number two man in there" Ball.

[John Iacoletti]

Not necessarily, Oswald's brown paper bag may have been out in the open before someone inadvertently moved the large bag out of the way

"Oswald's brown paper bag".  LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

You mean the lunch bag that was found on the top of the barricade?
And the gun bag that was found folded up between boxes?

Those bags?

What "gun bag"?  And I thought that bag was lying on the floor.  Must be more gorillas.