Mason can't help himself. Right out of the Defense Attorney Playbook that, thanks to Mark Lane and the like, polluted just about every forensic fact to do with the Kennedy assassination. In this case, Young Andy re-framed what I said into something I did not say.
Jerry, you seem awfully defensive. I just asked you why you think Hickey made up his statement about seeing the second shot NOT hit JFK. He said that the hair on the right side of his head flew up at the time of the second shot and did not appear to hit anything. Hickey did say that in his Nov. 30/63 statement (CE1024, 18H762):
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again."
You now accuse
me of lying in pointing out what he said. You said:
"And stop lying that it's where Hickey saw Kennedy's hair fly away. The only place Hickey could see the President's hair fly away is the head shot.
You lie because you need the tiny hair flutter for your Pet Theory's Z272 shot."
How is it a "lie" on my part to quote you saying that Hickey
did not see the hair fly up on the second shot before the head shot, and ask you why you think that Hickey, a career Secret Service Agent, would state that he
did see the hair fly up on the second shot, before the head shot if, indeed, he had not seen that, in which case he would have known he had not seen that when he gave his statement.
You say that you 'did not "suggest" Hickey "made up his story"'. Yet you continue to assert that Hickey, in recalling seeing JFK's hair fly up at the time of the second shot but no damage being done to JFK, was stating that he observed something that he did not observe:
Here what I wrote:
"Hickey seems to have heard the rifle report of the head shot and the impact on
the head as two separate sounds ("there seemed to be practically no time
element between them")."
I will just add a couple of comments:
"Practically" is a big word. It means there
was a time element between the last two shots but it was short.
Hickey did make it clear that he could distinguish between the two shots. He did not describe the impact to the head as occurring
before the sound of the shot, which is what would he would have heard if there had been just one shot. The sound of impact would have arrived at his ears about 1/10th of a second before the sound wave-front from the muzzle blast arrived. Why would he mistake that for two rifle shots? He distinguished between the impact sound and the muzzle blast but still counted that as one shot - the head shot. The second shot was a different shot, according to Hickey.
You then assert:
I have a "theory" that Hickey made up something he did not see? LOL! National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is tomorrow, but it's going to be wasted on you.
So are you conceding that he saw what he said he saw: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head" and "The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact" ?? Or are you still saying that I am lying in saying that Hickey actually said those words?
What time frame? Hickey said "Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President." Hickey's head is turned completely around in the Altgens photo at Z255, one second before the hair flutter in the Z270s. Even if Hickey began turning forward in Z256, he has to locate the President, perceive him "slumped forward and to his left" and observe the President "straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked." Then -- "At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports" -- Hickey sees what he calls "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward". Seems a lot to take in within one second, if Hickey got it all done by the Z270s.
If Hickey turned his head from z255 to z273, which is a full second, he could have easily heard a shot and seen JFK's hair fly up, which occurs from z273-276. Why could that not have happened? He said: "Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President." so it could not have been much later than z255 that he turned.
Hickey said he observed JFK's hair fly up on the right side of his head BEFORE the head shot. I have carefully examined the zfilm, as have you, and the only place that JFK's hair flies up between z255 when Hickey is looking rearward until z313 is from z273-z276. How could he possibly have known that this occurred if he had not seen it? It is obviously before the head shot. How do you explain that? Just a good guess? That is a really
big question that you seem to be avoiding......
And, while you are at it, how is it that this hair movement, which Hickey said coincided with the first of the last two shots, fits perfectly with a shot that is 2.3 seconds before the head shot? That just happens to fit with Oswald firing the last two shots as quickly as possible. Just a coincidence, I suppose.....
What about Hickey's other statement:
"Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President's car. The President
was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be
two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."
Hickey certainly associates the hair flying forward with the head shot.
In his Nov. 22/63 statement he described two shots and their effects. On one shot, he observed the right side of JFK's head being hit and on the other he observed that JFK's hair flew forward. Hey, and guess what:
that is exactly how he explained it in his more detailed statement on November 30/63!!Hickey was not standing in the Queen Mary; he was propped against the front side of two cases that were laid flat and stacked on his side of the back seat. I figure Hickey had his feet on the car floor because if he sat on the top of the upper case, he would go sliding off the cases at the first turn. My 3D model took into account the height differential and street slope.
You KNOW he was not standing? Why would his legs when facing rearward be in the same position when he was facing forward? Think Jerry. That makes absolutely no sense. When facing the rear, he would have been able to kneel against the seat as he appears to be doing in Altgens 6. But that was not possible when facing forward. Why would he not be standing when he faced forward? What
evidence do you have that he was not fully standing when he faced forward?
At least it appears that you would agree with me that he would be able to easily see the top of JFK's head if he was fully standing when facing forward. You can see from Altgens' 6 that Clint Hill was able to see the top of JFK's head. Hickey's eyes would have been even higher if he was fully standing.
Hickey could see some of the top of the President's head but not the right front. In the Z270s, Kennedy's head is tilted forward such that the tiny hair flutter was out of Hickey's sight. I posed Kennedy as he was in Z272 and I placed Hickey as he was in the Queen Mary. One is sitting in a car; the other is braced with his feet on the floorboard. I even had Hickey facing forward though I very much doubt Hickey reeled his head fully around in the one second between the Altgens photo and Z272.
This seems to once again come down to your non-comprehension of parallax and perspective. It would be like me taking on your legal work for a month.
Jerry, grade 5 students understand parallax and perspective. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Hickey saw what he said he saw. You say he could not. I say, there is no reason to believe that he made a false statement and every reason to believe, since what he said he observed actually appears in the zfilm, that his statement is not false.
