JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[Jason Thompson]

It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?

And it's a simple straightforward answer that you seem to be deliberately refusing to grasp.

All the witnesses were sure of where the sound came from. The trouble is that by the time sound reaches your ears it has been reflected off various buildings, and may therefore come to your ear from somewhere other than the original source. Only the other day I was walking past a local fort where they were doing shooting events. On the approach I was certain the sound of the shot was coming from my left. As I drew closer and rounded a corner I heard each shot twice, and as I rounded the corner completely I could see the people shooting on my left and hear the shots clearly coming from there. Echoes and such things deceive the senses.

This is a typical example of conspiracy theory thought process, because you are very familiar with this phenomenon. So much so that you don't even think about it. But when a situation is presented to you where that phenomenon is very significant you pretend it does not exist or apply. Why?

[profmunkin]

Answer these two quesions, please
1) Have you read Reclaiming History- The Assassination Of JFK by Vincent Bugliosi ?

2) Do you believe what he wrote ?

No, I have not read it, therefore question 2 is unanswerable.

I am not trawling through endless piles of documents and evidence here. I am taking issue only with your interpretations and attitudes.

Thank you for your answers.

Have you read the Warren Commission testimonies?

[Jason Thompson]

Have you read the Warren Commission testimonies?

No, but see my earlier response. I am not arguing with anything but your interpretations, hypotheses and attitudes. I do not need to read Warren Commission testimonies to address the issue of sound localisation and the inherent difficulty of it, for example. I do not need to read Warren Commission testimonies to be able to tell that at a glance a 7.5 mauser and a 6.5 carcano are easily confused, for example. I still await your explanation for JFK being shot in frame 189 of the Zapruder film without apparently reacting to it, for example.

[profmunkin]

How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?

No, I am not being a troll.

I am attempting to get you to understand that you are trying to apply a concept of what you believe happend in a situation, where you have no evidence that it applies.
The question is, how do you know the witnesses had a problem determining the direction of the shots?

Did your read "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK" by Vincent Bugliosi ?
Do you believe Vincent Bugliosi ?

[Jason Thompson]

The question is, how do you know the witnesses had a problem determining the direction of the shots?

Because this is a very well known and understood effect that you are totally neglecting. When witnesses report hearing shots from multiple locations it does NOT mean there were shots coming from all those locations. You have identified witnesses who said the shots came from the book depository, the grassy knoll or both, but all your witnesses, apparently, agree roughly on the number of shots. Since they heard them coming from different places but all heard the same number, then clearly some of them are incorrect. That is when you look for corroborating evidence, such as eyewitnesses saying they saw someone in that window, or saw a rifle being withdrawn, or someone saying they heard sounds that could not be heard from the plaza, such as rifle bolts being operated and shell casings hitting the floor.

To anyone, the sound of a distant gunshot echoing from a building sounds the same as a distant gunshot arriving directly. It will sound as if it comes from the building, though it may have come from somewhere else.

Are you seriously trying to tell us you have never expereinced this in your own everyday life?

[profmunkin]

No,

Jason, advice concerning JFK assassination, it comes from Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK"
Vincent Bugliosi said -
If you have not read the Warren Commision 26 volumes, you do not know what happened.

This advice is absolutly true.

 

[Jason Thompson]

Jason, advice concerning JFK assassination, it comes from Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK"
Vincent Bugliosi said -
If you have not read the Warren Commision 26 volumes, you do not know what happened.

This advice is absolutly true.

I will say this in plain English, prof: I am NOT arguing the evidence, I am arguing your interpretation of it. That does not require reading the testimony itself. I am only examining your interpretations, hypotheses and in some cases outright twisting of the terms used.

This, by the way, is how real peer review is carried out. When science papers are presented the author defends them. The people critiquing them do not have to go out and do their own experiments and research to prove them wrong: it is their responsibility to prove themselves right. I am not arguing anything that is not intended to address flaws in your own work. Such as your inability to understand that acoustic concerns mean that witnesses saying where they heard shots from is NOT enough to say they definitely came from that location.

 
[/quote]

[profmunkin]

To anyone, the sound of a distant gunshot echoing from a building sounds the same as a distant gunshot arriving directly. It will sound as if it comes from the building, though it may have come from somewhere else.

Are you seriously trying to tell us you have never expereinced this in your own everyday life?

Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.
Which witnesses said echos were a problem in determining direction of the shots in Dealey Plaza?

[Jason Thompson]

Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.

You are joking, right? This is physics. It applies everywhere. Sounds reverberate off large flat surfaces, such as the fronts of buildings. The behaviour of sound is universal at any given location on this planet.

Which witnesses said echos were a problem in determining direction of the shots in Dealey Plaza?

They didn't, because they didn't realise it at the time. They hear a single sharp sound coming from a particular location, and they cannot tell if that sound arrived directly from that location or if it was simply reflected from it. All they hear is a single 'crack'. They don't hear echoes as in the classic repeating sound fading off in volume so often prtrayed in film and TV. They don't experience difficulty in localising the direction of that sound. They simply lack the knowledge of what path that sound took to their ear from its original source.

Imagine being deaf and blind and standing in the middle of a squash court and getting hit by a ball in the back of the head. All you know is that the ball hit you by approaching you from behind, but you don't know if it arrived there directly or after bouncing off a couple of walls first. When asked, you will say you were hit from behind by a squash ball, because you don't have any more information than that.

I repeat: how could different witnesses report hearing the same number of shots from different locations without this simple echo effect?

[profmunkin]

I will say this in plain English, prof: I am NOT arguing the evidence, I am arguing your interpretation of it. That does not require reading the testimony itself. I am only examining your interpretations, hypotheses and in some cases outright twisting of the terms used.

Jason I could not have said this better "I am NOT arguing the evidence", I agree your not.

All I have tried to do is to get you to understand that the myths you think you know are unfounded, that if you do not examine the actual evidence, you are arguing about shadows.

"outright twisting of the terms used" - I am disturbed that you think that I am in some way being untruthful or deceptive, I will try to be more clear in what I post so that this impression is not perpetuated, my apologies.

[profmunkin]

Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.

You are joking, right? This is physics. It applies everywhere. Sounds reverberate off large flat surfaces, such as the fronts of buildings. The behaviour of sound is universal at any given location on this planet.
I repeat: how could different witnesses report hearing the same number of shots from different locations without this simple echo effect?

No, I am absolutely serious.
Was echos a concern for the Warren Commission in interpreting the evidence from testimonies of witnesses concerning direction of shots?

If there were discrepancies, did the Warren Commission do any scientific studies on the effects of echos in Dealey Plaza to explain discrepancies of witness testimony?

Please post references.

[Jason Thompson]

All I have tried to do is to get you to understand that the myths you think you know are unfounded, that if you do not examine the actual evidence, you are arguing about shadows.

No, I am not. You can't dismiss me that easily, I'm afraid. If you can't respond to questions regarding things like physics, basic posture and the possibiity of simple errors then the problem lies with you, not me.

"outright twisting of the terms used" - I am disturbed that you think that I am in some way being untruthful or deceptive, I will try to be more clear in what I post so that this impression is not perpetuated, my apologies.

The specific instances I was thinking of concerned your switching of the word 'persuade' with 'coerce', and your assumption that Weitzman's identification of the rifle was in some way more than a simple 'quick look' error rather than some anomalous detailed investigation. I do not think you are being deceptive, but I do think you are reading far too much into things at times.

[/quote]

[Jason Thompson]

No, I am absolutely serious.
Was echos a concern for the Warren Commission in interpreting the evidence from testimonies of witnesses concerning direction of shots?

It would have been a factor they would have had to consider, as in all cases where sound localisation is involved in the testimony.

If there were discrepancies, did the Warren Commission do any scientific studies on the effects of echos in Dealey Plaza to explain discrepancies of witness testimony?

No, because this effect is so common and well understood that it would be the default conclusion when discrepancies in testimony regarding where a sound like a rifle shot came from arise. It no more needs investigation than does the capability of a 6.5 carcano rifle to kill someone. You don't take the report of where the sound came from in isolation and attach any more weight to it. You add it up with everything else. When people say sounds came from multiple locations, you add the witness testimonies of people who saw things in certain locations, and the ballistic and forensic testing from things like autopsies and film recordings of events.

[Echnaton]

The question is, how do you know the witnesses had a problem determining the direction of the shots?

The vast majority of people in the plaza that day were not witnesses to a gun shot, they were witnesses to hearing a sound  and to a far lesser extent seeing the effects of the shots on the victims.  That is all.   Converting the individual perceptions into a cogent proposal of where the shot was fired is a mater of interpretation, and one that must reconciled with all empirical evidence.    Your rationalizations of reports and testimony to fit a predetermined conclusion reveal the absence of any empirical verification in your "analysis."

[LunarOrbit]

Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?


How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?

It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?

Do you have a problem understanding English? If a witness believed the shots were coming from the grassy knoll because that's where the sound seemed to come from then they were not "unsure". Being unsure would mean they had doubts. But they can be 100% sure the sound came from the grassy knoll and be 100% wrong.

There is no way a gunman near the grassy knoll could have shot JFK and Governor Connally in the way that we know they were shot. You can't shoot someone in the back when you're standing in front of them. That is undeniable so it doesn't matter if witnesses say that is where they heard the gunshots coming from.