Perception of Reality

[Andrew Mason]

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?

Let's take Hickey's observation that he observed JFK slumped to the left in the car and then observed him come up (22Nov63 statement) or "He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked." (30Nov63 statement) and see whether there is something that could have given him that impression.  Hickey said he turned to the rear for about 2-3 seconds before looking forward just before the time of the last shots. So he is comparing the position of JFK that he had seen before he turned to the rear to the position he saw him when he turned forward again.

When Hickey is last seen in frame z208 (the top half of z212) he is facing forward and rising up. From z225-235 JFK slumps forward and down and to the left of where he had been when waving to the crowd. If Hickey saw JFK up to z230 say, and then turned to the rear for a few seconds before looking forward around z265-z270 (some time after Altgens 6), he would have seen a change in JFK's position.  If you compare frame z230 and z270 (which is a bit more than 2 seconds), there is a noticeable difference:

By z267, JFK is not slumping forward as he was in z230.  He is sitting more erect.  Not fully erect, but more than he was in z230.  So Hickey would naturally have the impression that JFK had been straightening up.  Nothing inaccurate about that at all.  Perfectly reasonable.

The observation of the hair on the right side of JFK's head flying forward without causing damage to JFK is raises a different kind of issue.   The issue in the first observation concerned the accuracy of his description of a change in JFK's position.  In the hair flying up observation, the issue is whether the event it occurred at all, and if so, whether it occurred at the time he heard the second shot as he stated. The accuracy of the event can be determined by the fact that the hair flies forward on the right side of JFK's head (and no one else's hair moves at all) at the time that the 1.......2...3 shot pattern indicates the second shot could have occurred.  The hair flies up into the apparent wind caused by the motion of the car.  It is unusual.  That is the only time such a hair movement occurs while Hickey could have been turned forward.  It is very hard to imagine how he he could have guessed that it occurred then without actually seeing it. His description fits what is seen in the zfilm.

So Hickey's observation of the hair flip is definitely accurate.  He must have seen it.  There is no other way he could have known it had occurred.  The only question is whether it occurred at the time of the second shot.  To corroborate that, we have the dozens of witnesses who recalled the last two shots being close together, the first shot being the neck shot and the last shot being the head shot.  We also have Greer and Powers who described what occurred on the second shot (Powers: Connally disappeared from his view; Greer: turned around immediately after the second shot and saw Connally falling - he turns by z283). 

So my conclusion, which is consistent with all the evidence, is that Hickey actually saw the hair flying up on the right side of JFK's head without any damage occurring at the time of the second shot and this occurred at z273-276.  You may not agree with my conclusion.  But if you do not, you have a disagreement with the evidence, not my reasoning.

[Charles Collins]

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

Yes, it would be a very interesting documentary and appeal to a large audience. But sadly it doesn’t appear that it will ever be made.

[Dan O'meara]

Let's take Hickey's observation that he observed JFK slumped to the left in the car and then observed him come up (22Nov63 statement) or "He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked." (30Nov63 statement) and see whether there is something that could have given him that impression.  Hickey said he turned to the rear for about 2-3 seconds before looking forward just before the time of the last shots. So he is comparing the position of JFK that he had seen before he turned to the rear to the position he saw him when he turned forward again.

When Hickey is last seen in frame z208 (the top half of z212) he is facing forward and rising up. From z225-235 JFK slumps forward and down and to the left of where he had been when waving to the crowd. If Hickey saw JFK up to z230 say, and then turned to the rear for a few seconds before looking forward around z265-z270 (some time after Altgens 6), he would have seen a change in JFK's position.  If you compare frame z230 and z270 (which is a bit more than 2 seconds), there is a noticeable difference:

By z267, JFK is not slumping forward as he was in z230.  He is sitting more erect.  Not fully erect, but more than he was in z230.  So Hickey would naturally have the impression that JFK had been straightening up.  Nothing inaccurate about that at all.  Perfectly reasonable.

The observation of the hair on the right side of JFK's head flying forward without causing damage to JFK is raises a different kind of issue.   The issue in the first observation concerned the accuracy of his description of a change in JFK's position.  In the hair flying up observation, the issue is whether the event it occurred at all, and if so, whether it occurred at the time he heard the second shot as he stated. The accuracy of the event can be determined by the fact that the hair flies forward on the right side of JFK's head (and no one else's hair moves at all) at the time that the 1.......2...3 shot pattern indicates the second shot could have occurred.  The hair flies up into the apparent wind caused by the motion of the car.  It is unusual.  That is the only time such a hair movement occurs while Hickey could have been turned forward.  It is very hard to imagine how he he could have guessed that it occurred then without actually seeing it. His description fits what is seen in the zfilm.

So Hickey's observation of the hair flip is definitely accurate.  He must have seen it.  There is no other way he could have known it had occurred.  The only question is whether it occurred at the time of the second shot.  To corroborate that, we have the dozens of witnesses who recalled the last two shots being close together, the first shot being the neck shot and the last shot being the head shot.  We also have Greer and Powers who described what occurred on the second shot (Powers: Connally disappeared from his view; Greer: turned around immediately after the second shot and saw Connally falling - he turns by z283). 

So my conclusion, which is consistent with all the evidence, is that Hickey actually saw the hair flying up on the right side of JFK's head without any damage occurring at the time of the second shot and this occurred at z273-276.  You may not agree with my conclusion.  But if you do not, you have a disagreement with the evidence, not my reasoning.

"From z225-235 JFK slumps forward and down and to the left..."

    Your "untruthfulness" knows no bounds.
I was intrigued to see what fabrications your slippery mind would come up with but this is off the charts.
You genuinely believe you can misrepresent the Z-Film, state something has happened in it that obviously hasn't happened and that it won't be mentioned. Who do you think you are - Hickey?

JFK does not slump forward, down and to the left between frames z225 and z235. Have you lost your mind??

From z225 onwards JFK grabs his throat and sits bolt upright, he leans slightly forward, Jackie grabs hold of his arms and then he slumps to his left. This is what happens in the Z-Film and none of your untruthing will change that.
JFK does not begin to slump to his left until around z260.
In fact, Altgens 6 (z255) shows JFK sat up and leaning slightly forward but before he has begun to slump to the left:



Your arrogance, to believe you can simply ride roughshod over the film/photographic record, is unbelievable. And none of this changes the fact that in his statement Hickey is clear that when he turns around after hearing the first shot he sees JFK slumped to his left - this can only be a reference to the moment JFK has actually slumped to his left, something observed by dozens and dozens of witnesses.
From this slumped position Hickey then recalls JFK beginning to sit upright until he is almost erect and is then shot in the head.

THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.

JFK does not begin sit up after he has slumped to the left.
Hickey is FoS. His account of the shooting is wholly unreliable as he reports seeing things that do not happen. It isn't a question of him comparing JFK's position before he turned around to when he turned back, that's just your slippery mind in action. Hickey is supposedly describing an action that occurs after he has turned round from the position we see him in Altgens 6 - he is turned facing back and to his right at z255. JFK slumps to his left almost immediately after this moment.
Hickey then turns and describes something that clearly didn't happen, demonstrating his recollection of the moment of the headshot is severely defective and not to be trusted.

As for JFK's fringe ruffle, that you put down to a wayward shot...

"But if you do not, you have a disagreement with the evidence, not my reasoning."

 
What reasoning!!

[Andrew Mason]

"From z225-235 JFK slumps forward and down and to the left..."

    Your "untruthfulness" knows no bounds.
I was intrigued to see what fabrications your slippery mind would come up with but this is off the charts.
You genuinely believe you can misrepresent the Z-Film, state something has happened in it that obviously hasn't happened and that it won't be mentioned. Who do you think you are - Hickey?

JFK does not slump forward, down and to the left between frames z225 and z235. Have you lost your mind??

Your reaction is difficult to understand.  I just presented you with two animated .gif files to compare JFK's position seen by Hickey before he turns rearward to his position next seen by Hickey when he turns forward.  Can you not see them?

From z225 onwards JFK grabs his throat and sits bolt upright, he leans slightly forward, Jackie grabs hold of his arms and then he slumps to his left. This is what happens in the Z-Film and none of your untruthing will change that.

Did you not read what I wrote? I was describing JFK's position in z230 compared to his position while he was waving to the crowd before the Stemmons sign. I don't know why anyone would describe JFK as sitting bolt upright at z230, which is the position of JFK that I was suggesting that Hickey saw before he turned rearward for 2-3 seconds before turning forward again at the time of the last two shots.  Numerous witnesses described JFK as slumping forward or to the left and bringing his hands to his neck:

JFK does not begin to slump to his left until around z260.

Which zfilm are you viewing?  Here is a comparison of JFK's position between z193 and z230:

By z230 JFK has definitely moved noticeably left from the far right position he had in z193.  If you disagree, please explain why the green lines show otherwise.

Your arrogance, to believe you can simply ride roughshod over the film/photographic record, is unbelievable. And none of this changes the fact that in his statement Hickey is clear that when he turns around after hearing the first shot he sees JFK slumped to his left - this can only be a reference to the moment JFK has actually slumped to his left, something observed by dozens and dozens of witnesses.
From this slumped position Hickey then recalls JFK beginning to sit upright until he is almost erect and is then shot in the head.

THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.

The zfilm shows otherwise.  Hickey is describing a difference or change in position of JFK between the time he saw JFK before he (Hickey) turned around to the rear which I am suggesting could have occurred around z230 and when he turned forward just before the last two shots (which I am suggesting could have occurred around z270):

[Andrew Mason]

Getting back to the topic "Perception of Reality",  the photo of the lion holding the lion cub vs. the photo of JFK emerging from behind the Stemmons sign at z225. 

If you already have formed the view that the second shot had just occurred at z224 and passed through both men, you will see JFK not reacting in z225 to being shot in the neck because it is much too soon (55 ms) after the shot for him to have begun reacting.  Also, in z224 JFK has his hands down in front of him in a much different position than seen before he passed behind the Stemmons sign.  Since JFK could not have reacted to the neck shot before it hit him, the position of the hands seen in z224 is "natural" and the fact that JFK moves those hands closer to his face/neck afterward is seen as a different move: ie. one in response to the bullet passing through his neck instead of a continuation of the move of his hands from pre-Stemmons to z224.

The problem is that there is an enormous amount of witness evidence that the first shot struck JFK and that the last two shots were close together and not anything like 5 seconds apart.  So by the time JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, there has been only one shot.  So those who are trained to determine facts based on evidence do not interpret frame z224 as showing the second shot SBT.

Now, the question is: which approach has the better chance of reaching the right conclusion?

[Charles Collins]

Getting back to the topic "Perception of Reality",  the photo of the lion holding the lion cub vs. the photo of JFK emerging from behind the Stemmons sign at z225. 

If you already have formed the view that the second shot had just occurred at z224 and passed through both men, you will see JFK not reacting in z225 to being shot in the neck because it is much too soon (55 ms) after the shot for him to have begun reacting.  Also, in z224 JFK has his hands down in front of him in a much different position than seen before he passed behind the Stemmons sign.  Since JFK could not have reacted to the neck shot before it hit him, the position of the hands seen in z224 is "natural" and the fact that JFK moves those hands closer to his face/neck afterward is seen as a different move: ie. one in response to the bullet passing through his neck instead of a continuation of the move of his hands from pre-Stemmons to z224.

The problem is that there is an enormous amount of witness evidence that the first shot struck JFK and that the last two shots were close together and not anything like 5 seconds apart.  So by the time JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, there has been only one shot.  So those who are trained to determine facts based on evidence do not interpret frame z224 as showing the second shot SBT.

Now, the question is: which approach has the better chance of reaching the right conclusion?

Witness accounts are frequently inaccurate. You are cherry-picking the witnesses that agree with your idea. That’s not the same as looking at all the available views with an open mind.

[Andrew Mason]

Witness accounts are frequently inaccurate. You are cherry-picking the witnesses that agree with your idea. That’s not the same as looking at all the available views with an open mind.

Cherry picking witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot?  There are at least 20 witnesses who said he did exactly that. I must have missed all the witnesses who said that he continued to smile and wave after the first shot for even half a second, let alone 3 seconds as you suggest.  Perhaps you could direct me to just one....

Cherry picking witnesses who provided clear recollection that the last two shots were closer together and in rapid succession?  There are at least 40 who said exactly this.  Why would I cherry-pick the 6 witnesses who gave vague impression that the first two were closer together? 

Who is doing the cherry picking here?

I agree that witness accounts can be inaccurate. People are not audio/video recorders.  But you seem to accept that they are pretty accurate when it comes to recalling the number of shots.  You also agree with the accuracy of those who thought the shots came from the TSBD.  Why would the only issue that they are completely out to lunch on be the pattern of those shots and how JFK reacted to the first shot?  And while you are thinking about that, please explain how 80% of the witnesses who commented on the relative spacing of the shots recalled the same pattern to the shots:  1............2.....3 and that the last two were in rapid succession?

[Dan O'meara]

Witness accounts are frequently inaccurate. You are cherry-picking the witnesses that agree with your idea. That’s not the same as looking at all the available views with an open mind.

When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate.