WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Andrew Mason]

Hickey presents another problem for your theory.

To be clear, my "theory" is that what actually occurred is what a statistically highly significant proportion of the witnesses said they observed.

You claim there was a first shot about Z200-or-so and that witnesses to that saw Kennedy react immediately.

Yes, although the evidence suggests that the first shot was a bit earlier, likely z192-195.

Yet Hickey is facing forward in Z206 and reported no reaction by Kennedy to the first shot.

Hickey never said that he looked at the President before turning rearward. He said he looked at the President only after turning to the front, which he estimated was 2 or 3 seconds after turning rearward.  In z206 Hickey's face appears to be facing somewhat toward the right.  I can't tell where his eyes are looking.  So he may be just getting up and beginning his turn to the right and rear.  He turned forward in response to a "disturbance" in the President's car (the only thing that fits that description is JBC shouting "oh, no, no, no" which Nellie said he uttered before the second shot.    Hickey did say that when he turned forward and looked at the President he saw the President had "slumped forward and to his left".  So he is yet another witness who recalled that the president had reacted to the first shot.  Here is the full account of what he saw and heard as set out in his Nov. 30/63 report:

After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker.  It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level.  I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it.  Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the President's car.  Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President.  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.

We know Hickey did not literally stand up during the shooting, at least from how he appears in the photographic record. Seems reasonable to assume that he remained seated.

How does he turn completely around if he is sitting? His head is higher than others inside the car but not as high as the agents on the running board (see: Altgens 6 photo).  He may have been crouching with one foot on the floor and a knee on the seat.  But he was not sitting.

However, in Z162, for example, he is not seated vertically and is looking to his left. This could be the point where Hickey decided--upon hearing the first shot--to commence to "stand partially up" or "stand up", and to "turn to the right and rear".

Except that he is nowhere close to turning rearward for at least another 44 frames.  He said he turned rearward in response to hearing the first shot.

Also telling is when he talks about the shot (possibly the latter one of two by Z255) he heard before he took his photo. "Almost simultaneously with the shot--the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture" just doesn't work too well with your first shot at Z200-or-so, about three seconds before Altgens took his photo.

Yes, but it is a much worse estimate of the time if the first shot was at z155 as you suggest.  Witnesses are much better at observing the sequence of events and relative lapses of time than measuring absolute time.  Altgens took his z256 photo a bit more than 3 seconds after the first shot if the first shot was around z195. 

[Rob Caprio]

I made no claim. You are certain there was three shots. There is evidence of only two shots. Prove there was three shots. Explain the wound in Gov Connally's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK. You have said you have previous posts that prove it. Repost them.

You have offered Sen Russell as proof there was three shots and a jacketed bullet, which is basically designed to not deform like a soft core bullet, did not pass through two targets.

If you truly do not understand the ability of a bullet to pass through multiple targets call any state Fish and Game office and explain to them your theory about a bullet not being able to pass through multiple targets . When they are done laughing I am sure they can provide you with whatever information is required to help you understand how a bullet works, especially a jacketed bullet. If you would like to watch a graphic demonstration of the concept watch "Schindlers List", in the beginning of the movie men are lined up and  single shot is used to kill multiple men. Steven Spielberg had no problem understanding the concept.
----------------------------------------------------
You mentioned the HSCA. Maybe these observations and statements from the HSCA will help. They obviously believed the number of shots reported by the witnesses was "Inflated" due to outside sources and media influence and they even offer the additional explanation of misinterpreting echoes as shots.

"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137

Where did I say that I believe there were three shots? If you believe that there were only two shots then you have to support the SBT. Where is your supporting evidence for this claim?

Also, how do you explain James Tague?

[Rob Caprio]

Two bullets. The second bullet (after z250) caused JBC's chest and wrist wounds. It did not strike JFK.

So you are claiming that all three shots that the WC claimed were fired struck JFK and JBC, right? How do you explain James Tague then?

[Rob Caprio]

No, Rob thinks Sen Russell's statement somehow proves there is three shots and a second shooter------ there is evidence of two shots, prove there was three. Rob obviously can't, instead of insinuating there was three shots why don't you prove there was three shots? If there was in fact three shots it should be evident and easily shown.

No matter how many variations of this same theory evolve there is still some basic problems. Apparently the shot has now moved to Z250 from Z270 and it is now a shot that hit him in the back instead of just the leg? It appears you have abandoned the two shots closer together at the end to an even shot spacing? At least the cycle time of the carcano registered and you are trying to incorporate it in this new variation.

1) After viewing the Zapuder Film, Connally actually states he felt he was wounded by Z235.
2) Where is the bullet that hit JFK but supposedly missed JBC
3) Connally cries out after being wounded and Jackie always felt if her attention had not been diverted from JFK by JBC screaming she would have pulled JFK over on her lap. Remember JBC cries out after being wounded and both Nelly and Jackie reference that as having been after the first shot. Nelly even specifically states before the second.
4) If you are going to quote the witnesses at least state when they made there statements and how they changed over time. This appears to be the same seriously flawed logic that is always presented.
5) A large number of the eyewitnesses state there was two shots and where the first shot occurred and JFK reacts to it. Maybe stop regurgitating McAdam's witness compilation it is basically flawed, using latter statements not the earliest and heavily weighted to earwitnesses and not eyewitnesses.
6) The witness compilation you are quoting refers to the last two shots as being very close, "almost as one", or statements similar to this. Speer's analysis of them was that they were really talking about one shot.
7) There is still the same problem of few witnesses describe the assassination as taking place the way you are describing. Specifically the Zapruder Film does not.

 My OP shows that Senator Russell had grave doubts about the SBT, as did several other members, and without the SBT there had to be a second shooter.

No one has provided any evidence showing that the SBT actually happened.

[Andrew Mason]

So you are claiming that all three shots that the WC claimed were fired struck JFK and JBC, right? How do you explain James Tague then?

James Tague recalled three distinct shot sounds.  He recalled that he was not hit on the first shot and was not hit on the last shot.  So that means he was hit on the second shot.

That fits with:

1. CE399 being the first shot that struck JFK in the back/neck.
2. The second shot striking JBC in the right armpit exiting his chest and striking the back of the wrist that was pressed against his chest.
3. The evidence is consistent that the bullet striking the radius, a very hard bone, fragmented.  There were many small specks of lead in the wrist wound. The bullet fragments would tend to deflect away from the point of contact with the hard radius.  That would have been up.
4.  Greer said he felt a "concussion" sound on the second shot. He reported no such sound on the first or third shots. His right ear was a foot or so from the point of impact of the bullet fragments that struck the windshield and windshield frame and sun visor.
5. Since a fragment struck and damaged the very top part of the windshield frame, it is not difficult to imagine that a fragment, or several fragments, may have been deflected a bit higher and then gone on to strike the pavement in front of Tague and deflected up to strike the curb and then Tague's cheek.
6. Greer said he turned around immediately after the second shot and saw JBC falling back. He is seen turning back around z278-z280.

My OP shows that Senator Russell had grave doubts about the SBT, as did several other members, and without the SBT there had to be a second shooter.

Again, if the second shot was just before Greer turned around at z280 (i.e z272), there is no need for a second shooter. Oswald could have fired all three shots.
 

[Jack Nessan]

What other conclusion can be reached except a shot at Z250?
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."

132 witnesses all describing 3 shots with the last two being closer together is not a description of the Zapruder film or a shot at Z250 with LHO's carcano and its 2.3 second cycle time. So much for 132  witnesses. A very large number of eyewitnesses stated they heard just two shots. The sae eyewitnesses who state JFK reacted to the first shot and where that shot took place.
-----------------------------
Hickey
Wrong --- There is a huge difference in Hickey's Statements, in what universe is stating the passing bullet makes JFK's hair wave and a bullet impacting his head and making the hair detach the same event ?

There is little difference between Kinney and Hickey when it comes to their statements. Kinney has the head shot as being the second shot, the same as Kellerman and Greer. Hickey states the final two shots were so close together they sounded like one. That is not a description of a shot at Z250 or Z270.
"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. "

Hickey 11/30 statement about rooming with Kinney. The only two witnesses to state the hair flew from his head. They obviously talked about what occurred and that is reflected in their statements.
"Agents Kinney, Hickey, Lawson and Sorrels then drove in a Dallas field office car to the Sheraton Hotel in Dallas where reservations had been made for us. Agent Kinney and I then went to our room to wash and change clothes before dinner."


Hickey's two statements could not be more different in respect to what he stated he saw.
"Just prior to the shooting I was seated in the rear of SS-679-X on the left side. As IOO-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. 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. I then reached down, picked up the AR 15, cocked and loaded it and stood part way up in the car and looked about. By this time, IOO-X and 679-X had passed under the overpass and was proceeding at a high rate of speed towards the hospital."

"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route. Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by 679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. 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. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last."

"No time element between" the shots but yet he is describing two distinct shots as if they he could tell them apart. Originally he had just a bullet impacting and causing the hair to fly forward. The same as Kinney.

[Jack Nessan]

Altgens
James Altgens is a two shot witness. Like so many others he later incorporates into his statement the belief he missed a shot because of the medias common belief there was three shots. In the end he states, the same as Jackie, the media reporting there was three shots but he only knew of two shots.

James Altgens 11/22
At 12:41pm, a bulletin was sent over the AP wire by Ap Photographer James Altgens stating that "AP Photographer James W Altgens said he saw blood on the president's head. Altgens said he heard two shots..." Four minutes later Don Pardo of NBC read the bulletin over the air: A photographer said he saw blood on the presidents head. It is belived two shots were fired.

James Altgens AP photographer as read by Don Pardo on NBC News

-----------------------------
The "burst of noise article did not go out over the airways until 7:49 PM.

The motorcade was moving along in routine fashion until there was a noise like fireworks popping, I snapped a picture of the motorcade at just about that time. Still unaware of what was happening.
 I cranked my camera for another shot. The procession still moved along slowly. Then came the second burst of noise
There was a burst of noise ?the second one I had heard ----and pieces of flesh appeared to fly from the president Kennedy?s car. Blood covered the whole left side of his head.


Still he is talking about just two shots.The information that Altgens adds, that is very important, is Altgens also stated the one thing he was certain was there was not another shot after the headshot.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.

A large number of eyewitnesses also stated there was a shot after the headshot. Again the medias influence as to how many shots were fired can be seen in how the eyewitnesses add shots to their narrative. A good example is Kellerman.

-------------------------------
A Mason: Do you have a quote? " In his WC testimony he was clear that his z256 photo was after the first shot and before any other.  He could vouch for the first and the last but was not sure how many were in between. That to you means he heard only two?"

Yes because at no point in tie does he ever describe anything but two shots.

If you believe there was three shots stop pretending there was three and prove it.

[Jack Nessan]

So you are claiming that all three shots that the WC claimed were fired struck JFK and JBC, right? How do you explain James Tague then?

Other than Tague, can you supply a witness that stated they seen the bullet strike the curb near Tague? The witnesses describing a bullet striking the street account for all the shots fired. What is interesting is their statements always seem to leave just two shots hitting both JFK and JBC.

Would it not be easier to just admit you can't prove there was actually three shots. Nobody else seems to be able to either. You have seen everyone's theory on three shots, is there one of them that seems remotely plausible? Mason's seems to be evolving on a minute by minute basis. The belief there was three shots is faith based, the fact nobody agrees when the extra shot occurred should be the first indication it never happened.

If you believe there was a separate shooter then you obviously do not believe the three shells found in the snipers nest were all fired that day.