Perception of Reality

[Andrew Mason]

When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.

No.   Cherry-picking is never appropriate. 
When witness accounts contradict each other, one still has to use a rational fact-finding process to determine what happened.  If witness perception is skewed due to a common factor, such as sound reflections interfering with a witness' perception of the direction of the source of the sound, you may see large groups of witnesses disagreeing with each other.  But if there are no common factors that would induce a common error in witness observations, then errors will tend to be random and accurate observations will agree with each other.   That is just common sense and common experience. And we see this in the evidence in this case.

It is not cherry-picking to find that the 80% who said 3 shots over a matter of several seconds should be preferred to the recollection of Jean Hill who thought there were more than 3 and less than 7 shots, or to A.J. Millican who thought there were 8 shots over 5 minutes, or the handful of witnesses who could only recall two shots or thought there were 4 shots.  The distribution of shots in the shot counting fits exactly with what one would expect if there were exactly 3 shots recalled correctly by the vast majority with conflicting witnesses making errors that are randomly distributed over the other counts.

It is not cherry-picking to conclude that the witnesses who said that the shots appeared to come from the TSBD are to be preferred over the witnesses who said they appeared to come from somewhere farther south.  There are very sound, rational reasons for concluding that they all came from the SN and no corroborating evidence that any shots came from somewhere else.  The confusion that is evident in the number of witnesses who thought the sound came from other directions is consistent with the sound reflections in Dealey Plaza interfering with a human's ability to determine sound direction.

It is not cherry-picking to conclude that the third shot and last shot struck JFK in the head.   It is not cherry picking at all to observe that the preponderance of evidence on that issue favours the head shot being the last.  While Charles Brehm thought there was a shot after the head shot, there is nothing to corroborate that and much conflicting.  Altgens was adamant that the head shot was the last.  The Secret Service Agents, the Connallys, the police officers riding close to the President all agreed. Emmett Hudson initially mentioned only a shot hitting JFK when the car was in front of him (he was on the steps going up the knoll).  It was only in his WC testimony that he mentioned a shot after the headshot but his testimony was so at odds with his earlier statements that it is difficult to place much reliance on his WC testimony at all.

It is not cherry-picking to conclude that the second shot struck Governor Connally.  There is consistent corroborative evidence from those closest to the events (the accounts of the Connallys, bystander Gayle Newman, and the Secret Service agents and police officers around and behind the President) and no conflicting evidence that I have found.

[Dan O'meara]

No.   Cherry-picking is never appropriate. 

Who said it was appropriate? Nobody did, so you can back down off your strawman, ok? Oh how you misrepresent.
The point I was making was about a "narrative". Allow me to lay out the rest of my post you so judiciously avoided:

"When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate."

The rest of your horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns post is not worthy of repeating other than to say there is no greater culprit of cherry-picking than you. Your Hickey/fringe ruffle  is the worst kind of cherry picking.
Your utterly destroyed  theory of a hit around z271 is predicated on nothing but the cherry picking you so righteously denounce.
I ask for an open mind and I get you 

[Andrew Mason]

Who said it was appropriate? Nobody did, so you can back down off your strawman, ok? Oh how you misrepresent.
The point I was making was about a "narrative". Allow me to lay out the rest of my post you so judiciously avoided:

Well, you said "It must occur".  I disagreed.  I said it must never occur.

"When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate."

The rest of your horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns post is not worthy of repeating other than to say there is no greater culprit of cherry-picking than you. Your Hickey/fringe ruffle  is the worst kind of cherry picking.
Your utterly destroyed  theory of a hit around z271 is predicated on nothing but the cherry picking you so righteously denounce.
I ask for an open mind and I get you 

Well, Hickey is really the only witness who observed JFK's hair fly up on the second shot.  But there is no witness who gave conflicting evidence. So, it is not exactly "cherry-picking" to note that JFK's hair does fly up at z273-276 and that there is quite a bit evidence that a second shot occurred shortly before the head shot.

You do not seem to understand what "cherry-picking" means.  It means that you ignore the preponderance of evidence and go with the one piece of evidence that conflicts with the preponderance of evidence to make your case.  My "horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns post" is just pointing this out.  You still seem to be missing the point.  You seem to be completely unaware that you are "cherry-picking" by concluding that JBC was hit in the back on the first shot and that there was a shot after the head-shot.   Both conclusions conflict with the preponderance of evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

Well, you said "It must occur".  I disagreed.  I said it must never occur.

No you didn't. You never said it "must never occur".
Are you lying or just amazingly confused?

Well, Hickey is really the only witness who observed JFK's hair fly up on the second shot.

Isn't that a wake up call for you?
None of the other witnesses who were looking directly at JFK at the time of the assassination report this.
Doesn't that mean anything to you?
Does it mean anything to you that Brehm describes JFK's hair flying up at the moment of the headshot?
Does it mean anything to you that Hickey fails to mention JFK's exploding head?
Of course it doesn't, because you cherry pick Hickey's faulty observation of JFK's headshot to support your utterly destroyed theory that there was a bullet strike at z271.

But there is no witness who gave conflicting evidence.

Why should any witness give conflicting evidence for something that didn't happen?
Brehm described JFK's hair flying up at the headshot, isn't that counter-evidence?

So, it is not exactly "cherry-picking" to note that JFK's hair does fly up at z273-276 and that there is quite a bit evidence that a second shot occurred shortly before the head shot.

JFK's hair does not "fly up" at this point. His fringe slightly ruffles and no more than that. In your intense, cherry picking desperation you have to grasp onto anything you can and then cry "evidence".

You do not seem to understand what "cherry-picking" means.  It means that you ignore the preponderance of evidence and go with the one piece of evidence that conflicts with the preponderance of evidence to make your case.  My "horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns post" is just pointing this out.  You still seem to be missing the point.

 "...the preponderance of evidence..."

 

You completely ignore the most compelling evidence in this case and hang on to a handful of cherry picked, disparate statements that may or may not support your  theory of a shot at z271.
Please do not spout on about the insidious nature of cherry picking when there is no greater example of it than yourself.
 

[Charles Collins]

When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate.

Even the most open-minded people are susceptible to confirmation bias. I do not claim to be an exception to this phenomenon. If one has formed an opinion about something, he will often times give more weight to the side of conflicting evidence which agrees with his already formed opinion. The question should be: What is the reliability of the evidence that was used to form the opinion in the first place? And: How does the reliability of that evidence compare to the reliability of the conflicting evidence? Personally, I have tried to use reliable evidence to form an opinion about the timing of the shots. And a large percentage of this reliable evidence is directly related to the photographic record. The films and photos are documented to be related to specific times during the shooting.  Witness accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Therefore an opinion which is formed based heavily on witness accounts (without corroborating physical evidence) is on shakier ground than an opinion which is based on more reliable evidence.

[Andrew Mason]

No you didn't. You never said it "must never occur".
Are you lying or just amazingly confused?

Saying something is "never appropriate" is just a more polite way of saying it "must never occur".  Or did you really think that I meant that sometimes it should occur?  In case you still find it confusing, I will say it this way  "Cherry-picking is never appropriate: ie. cherry-picking must never occur".  I take it that you disagree with that statement.  You think it is ok to cherry-pick - to select a single piece of evidence that is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.  I guess we will have to disagree.

None of the other witnesses who were looking directly at JFK at the time of the assassination report this.
Doesn't that mean anything to you?

It would if there was no independent confirmation that what he observed actually occurred.  But the zfilm shows it occurring:

It just means that Hickey was particularly observant to have noticed an event which, without question, occurred.  And if one watches these frames carefully one realizes that it is the only bit of hair on anyone that moves and it moves INTO the apparent wind. What do you think could have caused it?  Just asking.

Does it mean anything to you that Brehm describes JFK's hair flying up at the moment of the headshot?

Brehm gave two statements.  In his first statement to the Dallas Herald (23Nov63) his statement is quoted and mentions only two shots. In his November 24/63 statement, after no doubt hearing all sorts of media reports that there were 3 shots, repeats what he said a few days earlier but adds that "a third shot followed" without saying anything more.  I am unable to find any reliable independent corroboration for a third shot following the head shot and much evidence that conflicts.  I assume Brehm was trying to be accurate but I cannot be sure that he recalled more than two shots and he was of the view that the second of those two shots struck JFK in the head.  It is, perhaps, unusual to describe the head shot as hair flying up but it is fairly clear that this is what he was referring to because he said that the President then rolled over to his side.   But just because Brehm described the head shot that way from his position does not mean that Hickey was describing it that way.  Hickey made a deliberate distinction between the last two shots, the first of which coincided with JFK's hair lifting and no apparent damage whereas the third appeared to strike him in the head.

Does it mean anything to you that Hickey fails to mention JFK's exploding head?

People describe what they recall.  He recalled seeing evidence that the shot hit JFK in the head.  He also recalled seeing no evidence that the second shot hit JFK in the head and did recall seeing JFK's hair on the right side fly forward without any sign of hitting him.

Of course it doesn't, because you cherry pick Hickey's faulty observation of JFK's headshot to support your utterly destroyed theory that there was a bullet strike at z271.

How is it "cherry-picking" to simply point out what he said he observed and to point out that precisely what he said he saw is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said it occurred (shortly before the head shot)?   What evidence conflicts with it?

Brehm described JFK's hair flying up at the headshot, isn't that counter-evidence?

No. For the reasons stated, Brehm was describing the headshot.  Hickey was describing a shot before the headshot that did not strike JFK that coincided with the movement of JFK's hair and then he described the third and last shot striking JFK in the head.

JFK's hair does not "fly up" at this point. His fringe slightly ruffles and no more than that. In your intense, cherry picking desperation you have to grasp onto anything you can and then cry "evidence".

It is plain to see that the hair on JFK's right side lifts together - and it is the only person whose hair moves. Here, I'll make it bigger for you:

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe it is possible that JFK was shot more than once in the head. Before it explodes... he nods noticeably and suddenly forward.

[Andrew Mason]

Even the most open-minded people are susceptible to confirmation bias. I do not claim to be an exception to this phenomenon. If one has formed an opinion about something, he will often times give more weight to the side of conflicting evidence which agrees with his already formed opinion. The question should be: What is the reliability of the evidence that was used to form the opinion in the first place? And: How does the reliability of that evidence compare to the reliability of the conflicting evidence? Personally, I have tried to use reliable evidence to form an opinion about the timing of the shots. And a large percentage of this reliable evidence is directly related to the photographic record. The films and photos are documented to be related to specific times during the shooting.  Witness accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Therefore an opinion which is formed based heavily on witness accounts (without corroborating physical evidence) is on shakier ground than an opinion which is based on more reliable evidence.

Every human being is susceptible to confirmation bias, as you point out.

When I began looking at the evidence of the shots in detail, I had already formed the conclusion based on the abundant evidence of Oswald's involvement that the WC conclusion was correct. I had assumed the SBT was correct but was of the view, like the WC, that it occurred on the first shot.  I started out with an open mind, however when I began, about 20 years ago, to examine the evidence in detail.  It quickly became apparent to me that the trajectory did not really work for the first shot SBT. And the conflict with Connally's evidence was difficult to explain. But my confirmation bias, that the SBT was likely correct, held.

 I then became aware that the SBT being touted was no longer the first shot SBT and that the SBT occurred on the second shot, the first shot having missed the entire car. But by this time I had become very familiar with the evidence that JFK had reacted to the first shot and for the 1.......2..3 shot sequence. The second shot SBT proponents had not even tried to deal with the abundant evidence that the first shot had struck JFK and that the last two shots were closer together. 

It was readily apparent that the second shot SBT was wrong.  But I was not yet prepared to abandon the first shot SBT. I still found Spector's argument that it must have struck JBC to be compelling.

It was only after really taking a hard look at the evidence and setting aside my confirmation bias that I was able to see that the SBT on the first or second shot was not correct and that a much simpler explanation that fit ALL the bodies of evidence emerged. The evidence in this case establishes that SBT is not needed to explain the correct LN conclusion: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.

 So my entire approach has been one of trying to overcome confirmation bias and just look at the evidence.