James Leon Simmons.... Overpass Witness

[John Iacoletti]

I answered that in reply #47 of this thread:

The question I asked is about that: how precise are human beings with direction? This question can be easily answered by noting that "human-measurable" scales regarding direction don't get any more precise than a 16 point compass rose. So direction in this case is only accurate to within +/- 11 degrees.

I really don't think it's exactly +/-11 degrees, but it's pretty close to that, otherwise we'd need (and have) more compass points than N, SW, ENE, etc.  To put it another way, if you and someone else were standing at the edge of a downtown, and there was a loud, unexpected shot, would you expect your companion to say, "Wow, that came from 49 degrees East of North"? Or would he just point in the general direction as best he could? 

You're just restating the claim.  Is there any research that shows that humans can only distinguish 11 degrees or did you just pull that out of your rear orifice?

It comes down to how precise you think that someone could be about the direction of the origin of a shot in Dealey Plaza. I'd keep asking you about what you think that level of precision would be, but as you say, you don't care.  It's the most important underlying question to the whole kerfluffle...and you simply don't care. But you want to argue about it anyway.

This is really pointless.  Would it have changed your point in any way to use the more accurate phrase "nearly the same direction"?  "Same" is a binary proposition.  Something is either the same or it is not the same.  You're exaggerating the language in order to try to make your argument more compelling.  Just like you're equating the entire grassy knoll area with one corner of the retaining wall in order to make your "same" difference as small as possible.  Yes, it matters.

It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the evidence if people won't even be honest and accurate about what the evidence is.

[John Iacoletti]

A Modern Tale of How to Strike Out the Side
by Bill Chapman with a great big shout-out to Jack Norworth

Nice story Bill.  You're well on your way to replacing Walt as chief fabricator and thread hijacker.

[Mitch Todd]

You're just restating the claim.  Is there any research that shows that humans can only distinguish 11 degrees or did you just pull that out of your rear orifice?

This is really pointless.  Would it have changed your point in any way to use the more accurate phrase "nearly the same direction"?  "Same" is a binary proposition.  Something is either the same or it is not the same.  You're exaggerating the language in order to try to make your argument more compelling.  Just like you're equating the entire grassy knoll area with one corner of the retaining wall in order to make your "same" difference as small as possible.  Yes, it matters.

It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the evidence if people won't even be honest and accurate about what the evidence is.

It's pointless because you "don't care" about the question that's fundamental to the problem. And you haven't really even thought through what the word "same" means. I used it in the the sense of "indistinguishable", or, as M-W says: "corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable." The trick is, "same" becomes  dependent on what can be distinguished. That is why I wasted a lot of words giving you example of a measuring device accurate to +/-1 cm, and you wasted a lot of time ignoring them. It can't really distinguish between objects that differ less than 2cm in length no matter what number you think you get. In short, "Same" has fuzzy, indistinct edges. The question in this case is how fuzzy those edges are. To wit (and I'll word it a bit differently this time): given the environment of Dealey Plaza 12:30 PM on Nov 22, 1963, how accurate would anyone be at locating a sound like a gunshot? That's the question you "don't care" about, and it's central to the discussion at hand. But you still want to argue about it.



 

[Bill Chapman]

Nice story Bill.  You're well on your way to replacing Walt as chief fabricator and thread hijacker.

'chief fabricator'
Nah, just artistic license

'thread hijacker'
Your failure to comprehend my 'left field' analogy is your burden

And it's one, two, three strikes, yer out!
You're benched, Little Johnny I

[Bill Chapman]

What is your source for what humans can easily discern on their own?  Particularly your 11 degrees claim.  You still haven't answered that.

I don't care.  I'm merely pointing out that 11 degrees off is not the "same direction".  Nor is 3 degrees off.  Same direction means zero degrees.

There's that bar of yours again. To fully satisfy your claim, an earwitness downrange from the TSBD would have to point directly at the SN window. Got it.

In the meantime, may a thousand camels f*rt in your general direction

[John Iacoletti]

It's pointless because you "don't care" about the question that's fundamental to the problem. And you haven't really even thought through what the word "same" means. I used it in the the sense of "indistinguishable", or, as M-W says: "corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable." The trick is, "same" becomes  dependent on what can be distinguished. That is why I wasted a lot of words giving you example of a measuring device accurate to +/-1 cm, and you wasted a lot of time ignoring them. It can't really distinguish between objects that differ less than 2cm in length no matter what number you think you get. In short, "Same" has fuzzy, indistinct edges. The question in this case is how fuzzy those edges are. To wit (and I'll word it a bit differently this time): given the environment of Dealey Plaza 12:30 PM on Nov 22, 1963, how accurate would anyone be at locating a sound like a gunshot? That's the question you "don't care" about, and it's central to the discussion at hand. But you still want to argue about it.

I just disagree with you.  Two things are either the same or they are not the same.  What I don't care about is your convoluted justification for using the word "same" anyway.

It's pointless because we're never going to change each other's minds about that, so let it go.

[John Iacoletti]

'chief fabricator'
Nah, just artistic license

'thread hijacker'
Your failure to comprehend my 'left field' analogy is your burden

And it's one, two, three strikes, yer out!
You're benched, Little Johnny I

Wake me up if you ever decide to post anything relevant.

[Mitch Todd]

I just disagree with you.  Two things are either the same or they are not the same.  What I don't care about is your convoluted justification for using the word "same" anyway.

It's pointless because we're never going to change each other's minds about that, so let it go.

Every time I see you write "they are the same or not the same," I get this feeling that you're a programmer. They tend to argue that way, because so much of their world is built out of Boolean logic itself running on a carefully constructed landscape of FET transistors burning away in hysteresis. But that's an artificial world; the real one is much messier. Figuring out what is the same and what isn't is limited by the level of our ability to differentiate between things. If I look at a parking lot across the street, I can easily distinguish the Camrys, the Accords, the Corvettes, etc, from each other and from the other cars in the lot. Someone whose eyesight isn't as good might be able to figure out cars from trucks, but nothing more. And Stevie Wonder is simply out of luck.