Perception of Reality

[Jerry Freeman]

  Whether it is the main stream media’s bias or Oliver Stone’s bias (in his movie JFK) showing only one view in order to promote their bias can be misleading. Sadly, it happens every day.

So you admit that there is a lame stream media bias... I certainly agree. But you are very much mistaken about the direction of that bias.
That day and in the December time that followed the assassination we had Uncle Walter Cronkite [whom everybody trusted heart and soul] reading the teleprompter like a puppet and the two other networks [the only ones around] followed suit. Who wrote those words for them to parrot? Who controlled the information? That control has never changed.
The case against the accused assassin was prosecuted via TV. Any questions were squelched...any doubts were belayed.
Regarding the movie 'JFK'...most people regard it as a film with an all star cast that is for the most part...too depressing...but does raise many questions. So what was wrong with that? There were productions along the way like 'The men who killed Kennedy' but they are regarded more as a novelty than anything else.

[Charles Collins]

So you admit that there is a lame stream media bias... I certainly agree. But you are very much mistaken about the direction of that bias.
That day and in the December time that followed the assassination we had Uncle Walter Cronkite [whom everybody trusted heart and soul] reading the teleprompter like a puppet and the two other networks [the only ones around] followed suit. Who wrote those words for them to parrot? Who controlled the information? That control has never changed.
The case against the accused assassin was prosecuted via TV. Any questions were squelched...any doubts were belayed.
Regarding the movie 'JFK'...most people regard it as a film with an all star cast that is for the most part...too depressing...but does raise many questions. So what was wrong with that? There were productions along the way like 'The men who killed Kennedy' but they are regarded more as a novelty than anything else.

I (and apparently many other people) have requested that Ken Burns, the acclaimed documentary producer, make a documentary about the JFK assassination. One of the reasons that I specified in my letter to him was to provide a counter viewpoint to the Oliver Stone movie. Sadly the response from him stated that he already had many projects in the pipeline and was too busy to do one on the JFK assassination. Ken Burns is very well known and I think is uniquely qualified to make a documentary based on what is known (instead of “raising more questions “) that would appeal to a wider audience than just the students of the case. His techniques typically can “transport” an audience to the period of time in history and the events that are the subject of the documentary. It would be a much needed antidote to Oliver Stone’s movie, if he would only make it.

[Andrew Mason]

You're re-framing what I said just like you've re-framed what Hickey said. Here's his original statement again:

    "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."

The head is struck and the hair then flies away. Even his later report has those two shots intertwined:

    "At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots
     and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in
     such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.
     It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head."

Here he doesn't say only one of the two shots (or sounds he thought were shots; one could have been the impact on the head or the windshield frame being struck) struck the President's head; he says both "reports" occurred during the head shot event. Only then does Hickey break it down (much to the benefit of cherry-pickers):

    "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. -- Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
     the first report and the last."

Because this is the only point at which Hickey could have seen hair "fly forward", he must be talking about the head shot.

But HE IS CLEARLY NOT TALKING ABOUT THE HEAD SHOT. He is talking about the first shot of the second two which appeared to miss because he observed the hair on the right side of his head fly forward with no impact on the head.  There is no way that he is describing the head shot. 

By your Theory, Hickey would be describing a span of more than two seconds as "there seemed to be practically no time element between them".

Jerry, my "theory" is that Hickey did not make it up.  My "theory" is that he saw what he said he saw. 

Here's what I 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."

Jerry, he said he saw JFK's hair fly up on the right side on the first of the last two shots and nothing else happened.  You say that Hickey could not have seen what he said he saw.  I am just saying that, since the only place Hickey could have seen JFK's hair fly up BEFORE the head shot, which is unquestionably what he described, was the only place his hair flew up while he was looking forward, which is z273-76.  And you accuse me of "lying" for saying this!!!  It is you who is accusing Hickey of uttering a falsehood. I did not utter a falsehood by pointing out the evidence.

Calm down, fellow. I'm sorry your lamebrain Pet Theory is in the Ash Heap of History. So now the defense attorney is resorting to charges of evasion, even though I worked up his Hickey claim in 3D three years ago, and more recently explained that since Hickey can't physically see to the tiny hair flutter in the Z270s, he must have been talking about the head shot, where hair does fly forward in a memorable way plus being visible to Hickey.

I don't know if you can actually read, Jerry.  He distinctly said he was talking about a shot BEFORE the head shot!!  He was not talking about the head shot.

Show one motorcade-underway picture where Hickey is standing with his head level with Clint Hill.

Unfortunately, there are none.  But there is one of Powers standing up in the QM taking movies. It is clear from your photo below that Powers is higher up than Clint Hill and the other agents on the running board.  How tall was Hickey? Do you know?

Surely, Agent Hickey must have stretched his legs once in a while.

Why? What does it matter if he didn't or if there is no photo of it? How does that bear on the issue: whether he was standing when he said observed the President at the time of the last two shots?

Dave Powers standing

Dave Powers' view

Dave Powers was more to the behind of Kennedy than Hickey. Powers wouldn't be able to see to the hair flutter when Kennedy's head was sharply tilted forward and tilted a bit toward Jackie.

You are just making that up!  How on earth can you know that?  JFK's head would have been at his shin level 20 feet away. He could see his whole head. And he said he saw the hair on the right side of his head fly forward. You are really grasping at straws.

BTW, a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".

Hickey obviously thought so because he recalled it and wrote it in his statement.

[Dan O'meara]

But HE IS CLEARLY NOT TALKING ABOUT THE HEAD SHOT. He is talking about the first shot of the second two which appeared to miss because he observed the hair on the right side of his head fly forward with no impact on the head.  There is no way that he is describing the head shot. 

Jerry, my "theory" is that Hickey did not make it up.  My "theory" is that he saw what he said he saw. 
Jerry, he said he saw JFK's hair fly up on the right side on the first of the last two shots and nothing else happened.  You say that Hickey could not have seen what he said he saw.  I am just saying that, since the only place Hickey could have seen JFK's hair fly up BEFORE the head shot, which is unquestionably what he described, was the only place his hair flew up while he was looking forward, which is z273-76.  And you accuse me of "lying" for saying this!!!  It is you who is accusing Hickey of uttering a falsehood. I did not utter a falsehood by pointing out the evidence.

I don't know if you can actually read, Jerry.  He distinctly said he was talking about a shot BEFORE the head shot!!  He was not talking about the head shot.
Unfortunately, there are none.  But there is one of Powers standing up in the QM taking movies. It is clear from your photo below that Powers is higher up than Clint Hill and the other agents on the running board.  How tall was Hickey? Do you know?
Why? What does it matter if he didn't or if there is no photo of it? How does that bear on the issue: whether he was standing when he said observed the President at the time of the last two shots?You are just making that up!  How on earth can you know that?  JFK's head would have been at his shin level 20 feet away. He could see his whole head. And he said he saw the hair on the right side of his head fly forward. You are really grasping at straws. Hickey obviously thought so because he recalled it and wrote it in his statement.

"Jerry, my "theory" is that Hickey did not make it up.  My "theory" is that he saw what he said he saw."

"He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. 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."

So, according to your "theory" Hickey saw JFK " straightening up to an almost erect sitting position".
This is not shown in the Zapruder footage yet Hickey still saw it.
How did Hickey see something that didn't happen?

According to your "theory" JFK "was almost sitting erect" when Hickey saw the headshot.
This is not shown in the Zapruder footage yet Hickey still saw it.
How did Hickey see something that didn't happen?

More interesting is what Hickey doesn't see.
The most striking aspect of this whole case is JFK's head exploding yet Hickey doesn't see this.
JFK's head flies backwards and to the left yet Hickey doesn't see this, instead he sees JFK fall forward as a result of the headshot.
This is not what the Zapruder footage shows.
It shows JFK's head flying "back and to the left"

Multiple witnesses describe JFK's hair flying up as a result of the headshot.

If your "theory" is that Hickey is describing what he actually saw then it's a sh&t theory as it is totally and completely contradicted by the Zapruder footage.

But that's never put you off before.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

The orange line shows that Hickey sitting up on 2 leather cases could see a half of JFK's head over the upturned sun-vizors.
And, i reckon that Hickey could see all of JFK's head above the windshield of Queen Mary, if throo the large gap tween the upturned sun-vizors, if Queen Mary were in a favourable location behind.

The black ovals are JFK's head, & Hickey's head when sitting up hi, & Hickey's head when standing.

Actually it has been said that Hickey was a very tall dude. And he appears tall in some photos. Hence i have drawn a red oval showing Hickey's head a bit higher (when standing).

The black line shows the needed height & trajectory for Hickey's AR15, for the accidental headshot at Z313, when Hickey stood up to turn around to target the shooter behind Queen Mary.
Actually, i have based that black line on JFK's head being where drawn by Donahue (ie as drawn in that drawing).
In reality JFK's head at Z313 would have been higher than drawn by Donahue, it would have been as per the red oval head.

[Andrew Mason]

"Jerry, my "theory" is that Hickey did not make it up.  My "theory" is that he saw what he said he saw."

"He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. 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."

So, according to your "theory" Hickey saw JFK " straightening up to an almost erect sitting position".
This is not shown in the Zapruder footage yet Hickey still saw it.
How did Hickey see something that didn't happen?

According to your "theory" JFK "was almost sitting erect" when Hickey saw the headshot.
This is not shown in the Zapruder footage yet Hickey still saw it.
How did Hickey see something that didn't happen?

More interesting is what Hickey doesn't see.
The most striking aspect of this whole case is JFK's head exploding yet Hickey doesn't see this.
JFK's head flies backwards and to the left yet Hickey doesn't see this, instead he sees JFK fall forward as a result of the headshot.
This is not what the Zapruder footage shows.
It shows JFK's head flying "back and to the left"

You seem angry, Dan.

First of all, I never said anything about Hickey's description of how JFK moved after the headshot. In this case, I said that Hickey said he saw the hair fly up on the second shot BEFORE the headshot and that this is seen in the zfilm. So there is no reason to reject that evidence. It also fits with Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman and the dozens of witnesses who recalled the last two shot close together and the headshot being the last. The alternative would be to conclude that he made up seeing this and it is just a coincidence that what he made up and did not see actually occurred. That is your theory, not mine.

But while we are on the subject of Hickey's statement about how JFK moved, it is apparent that Hickey was watching JFK's head. His head did move forward from the impact of the headshot bullet. And the motion of his body after was predominantly leftward. Hickey was observing from the rear, not the side.

 I know from past discussions that you think Hickey fabricated his statements.  But his statements fit the rest of the evidence.

Multiple witnesses describe JFK's hair flying up as a result of the headshot.

Perhaps. But in Hickey's case he distinguished two shots that had two different effects.  How many said that there was a shot that coincided with his hair flying up but did not appear to strike his head and then described another shot that did strike his head?

[Andrew Mason]

I (and apparently many other people) have requested that Ken Burns, the acclaimed documentary producer, make a documentary about the JFK assassination. One of the reasons that I specified in my letter to him was to provide a counter viewpoint to the Oliver Stone movie. Sadly the response from him stated that he already had many projects in the pipeline and was too busy to do one on the JFK assassination. Ken Burns is very well known and I think is uniquely qualified to make a documentary based on what is known (instead of “raising more questions “) that would appeal to a wider audience than just the students of the case. His techniques typically can “transport” an audience to the period of time in history and the events that are the subject of the documentary. It would be a much needed antidote to Oliver Stone’s movie, if he would only make it.

It would be interesting to see Ken Burns take on the SBT. 

[Dan O'meara]

You seem angry, Dan.

Do I?
Jut because I pointed out how unbelievably poor your madcap "theory" is?

Just to recap the important point you slid over -
Your "theory" - that Hickey "saw what he said he saw."
I pointed out that Hickey turns round after the first shot and sees JFK slumped to his left (as we see in the Z-Film).
He then reports that JFK begins to sit up and is almost sat fully erect at the time of the headshot.
This does not happen. We know this for a fact. It is not in the Z-Film.

So what does that say about the reliability of what Hickey "sees"?
It says his account of what happened is completely unreliable.
He reports seeing things that did not happen!!

How can you possibly get around this fact?