Only if you make a lot of assumptions about contradictory accounts of the wound locations, the exact positions of the limo occupants, and the location of the shooter.
1. There are various photographs and x-rays, that can be used to find out the wound locations.
2. The position of the "limo occupants" can be established by photos and videos.
3. The location of the shooter can be established by aligning the entrance and exit wounds of JFk.
But lots of things are possible. Can they show that it actually happened?
And how about you? Can you prove, that the single bullet didn't happen?
And so what if it did? How does that get you to the identity of the shooter?
Quite easy, if you know the position of the shooter, you can search this place for further evidence and link it to the shooter.
No it doesn't. The quality of a witness observation is depends on the ability of a human to make the observation.
But that contradicts your previous argument. Just to remind you, you stated:
An individual witness can be wrong. But if multiple independent witnesses report consistent observations, on what basis can that evidence be disregarded?
It seems, that you are trying to move the goalpost.
Detecting gunshot sounds and the relative spacing is rather easy to do.
Obviously not, as many witnesses (including Tague!) testified, that they thought the first shot was a firecracker or a backfire of one of the vehicles!
Determining where the shots came from is much more difficult. Direction is determined by the brain sensing a time difference between the sound wave front reaching each ear. The sense of direction can be fooled by reflected sound. Dealey Plaza had many surfaces that reflected sound. So I would expect that some people would be confused as to the direction of the sound source. That confusion is reflected in the distribution of witness evidence.
While this is surely true (see Zapruders testimony [I do not classify him as an "knoll witness" because of this fact]), can you prove this for every witness?
Having said that, many more witnesses said the sound source was around the TSBD.
This is of course true, but it is no contradiction to a shooter at the grassy knoll! The common argument is, that a further shooter was present at the grassy knoll and this proves a conspiracy (which is actually not true).
But, fact observation is fundamentally different. As the studies referred to by Loftus show, where a detail is recalled by most eyewitnesses, accuracy is quite high - around 98%.
What part of her book are you referring to? Is it table 3.1? If so, did you know, that this table represents the results of a multiple choice test? Now tell me, which investigator uses multiple choice tests for his interrogations?
Where you have many witnesses independently saying the same thing, it boggles the mind to suggest that they all independently made up the same fact!
I never claimed, that the witnesses made up this fact! You are just putting words in my mouth.You futhermore fell prey to the "argumentum ad populum fallacy". Just because a lot of people said, that something occured, doesn't necessarily mean, that something occured. You have to confirm this accounts by actual facts.
Any given witness can be wrong. My point is that you do not have to know anything about and individual's reliability as a witness to determine that if 22+ people independently reported seeing a simple observable fact and 0 reported a different fact, you are making a big mistake if you find in favour of the fact that 0 people observed.
Well, to the best of my knowledge no witness ever observed, that a bullet fragmented, therefore it didn't happen (according to YOUR logic).
