A Closer Look…

[Andrew Mason]

That doesn't translate into "Jerry is already on record saying that Hickey standing up could not see JFK".

I said Hickey couldn't see the flutter of Kennedy's hair because it would have been out of Hickey's viewpoint. Practically what I said in the post you cited:

    "The view to the area of the hair flutter is blocked because
      Kennedy's head is slanted forward, away from Hickey's LoS."

It's because Kennedy's head leaned forward such that caused the little lock of hair to dangle and be puffed in a small way by the wind. I duplicated an agent standing and called him "Hickey Standing" (the surrogate's head is about a foot higher than Hickey's head in the Altgens Photo) and I made Kennedy's head lean forward to illustrate Hickey's impossible view-line to the hair flutter.

Yet he said he saw it and it was NOT the shot that caused JFK to be struck in the head, which was the third shot.  How is it even possible that the unusually short and very local blast of air occurs just to the right of JFK's head lifting his hair at the point in time that it Hickey places it, IF he hadn't seen it?  That makes no sense. And it fits with Greer, Tague, the wounds, the shot pattern, the first shot hitting JFK etc. etc. 

Dave Powers was more to the behind of Kennedy than Hickey. Even 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.

It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward, none of it visible to Hickey. Not to mention that Hickey would have to turn around to face forward (he's looking backward in Altgens, taken Z255) between Z255 and Z273 (about one second), locate Kennedy and observe that minor hair flutter.

Your argument that he was at the wrong angle to see it isn't very persuasive. He was looking down onto the top of JFK's head. Why would he not be able to see what he said he saw?  Can you duplicate this in 3D?

I don't like you misusing my words and placing fake lines on my graphics, so this will be our last one-to-one exchange for awhile.

The "fake" line was yours:



I just extended it to measure it. 

I hope the break will allow you to come up with new descriptive epithets for the 3 shot 3 hit scenario. "Mason-nut theory" and "Bat__it crazy" and "Sponge-Bob Squarepants" were all very good but getting a little worn with age.  I expect you can do better.

[Dan O'meara]

Yet he said he saw it and it was NOT the shot that caused JFK to be struck in the head, which was the third shot.  How is it even possible that the unusually short and very local blast of air occurs just to the right of JFK's head lifting his hair at the point in time that it Hickey places it, IF he hadn't seen it?  That makes no sense. And it fits with Greer, Tague, the wounds, the shot pattern, the first shot hitting JFK etc. etc. 

Your argument that he was at the wrong angle to see it isn't very persuasive. He was looking down onto the top of JFK's head. Why would he not be able to see what he said he saw?  Can you duplicate this in 3D?
The "fake" line was yours:



I just extended it to measure it. 

I hope the break will allow you to come up with new descriptive epithets for the 3 shot 3 hit scenario. "Mason-nut theory" and "Bat__it crazy" and "Sponge-Bob Squarepants" were all very good but getting a little worn with age.  I expect you can do better.

As Jerry has demonstrated beyond doubt - it was impossible for Hickey to see the slight ruffle of JFK's fringe from where he was positioned.
It was physically impossible.
This has been demonstrated beyond any question.

Rather than tackle Jerry's comprehensive demonstration of this impossibility, all you can manage is "yet he said he saw it".
You fail to comprehend that, if it was impossible for Hickey to see the fringe ruffle your demented theory requires, then he must have been talking about something else when he referred to JFK's hair moving.
It is the only conclusion that can be drawn.
Your demented "logic" - that Jerry's faultless demonstration must be wrong because you think Hickey said he saw JFK's fringe ruffle - says all anyone needs to know about the quality of your approach to this matter.

[Andrew Mason]

As Jerry has demonstrated beyond doubt - it was impossible for Hickey to see the slight ruffle of JFK's fringe from where he was positioned.
It was physically impossible.
This has been demonstrated beyond any question.

Rather than tackle Jerry's comprehensive demonstration of this impossibility, all you can manage is "yet he said he saw it".
You fail to comprehend that, if it was impossible for Hickey to see the fringe ruffle your demented theory requires, then he must have been talking about something else when he referred to JFK's hair moving.
It is the only conclusion that can be drawn.
Your demented "logic" - that Jerry's faultless demonstration must be wrong because you think Hickey said he saw JFK's fringe ruffle - says all anyone needs to know about the quality of your approach to this matter.

You seem to be unable to understand the significance of this fact: the very thing that you say he couldn't see but which he said he saw actually occurred - at the time he said it occurred and just as he described. It also occurred at the same time as JBC starts moving forward BEFORE he falls back onto his wife.  It also occurred at the same time as Greer said he heard the second shot and - almost simultaneously turned around to see JBC falling back onto his wife.  It also occurred at the same time that 45+ witnesses said the second shot had to have occurred if the head shot was the last shot.  It also occurred at the very moment that the MC could have been fired if the shooter was trying to fire the MC as rapidly as possible (2.3 seconds before the head shot). 

Cases are not solved by logic. They are solved by evidence.  So it is not logic, demented or otherwise, that causes me to conclude that Hickey saw what he said he saw at the time of the second shot. It is an abundance of independent, consistent bodies of mutually consistent evidence.

As far as Jerry proving that Hickey could not see the top of JFK's head and, therefore, the hair on the top of the right side of his head, I have seen no demonstration by Jerry or anyone showing this, faultless or otherwise.  Cite?

[Jack Nessan]

Hickey did see JFK’s hair fly forward but only after the bullet struck. At least he did on 11/22. Actually, it is exactly what everyone saw. Andrew knows this because it has been explained to him many many many times. 

SA Hickey: 11/22 

“The president was slumped to the left in the car and I saw 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.”

[Andrew Mason]

Hickey did see JFK’s hair fly forward but only after the bullet struck. At least he did on 11/22. Actually, it is exactly what everyone saw. Andrew knows this because it has been explained to him many many many times. 

SA Hickey: 11/22 

“The president was slumped to the left in the car and I saw 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.”

Jack, you seem to have missed the part of his 30Nov63 statement that says:

"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."

In Hickey's 22Nov63 statement he was describing the effects of two separate shots without specifying what happened on each shot.

[Jack Nessan]

Jack, you seem to have missed the part of his 30Nov63 statement that says:

"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."

In Hickey's 22Nov63 statement he was describing the effects of two separate shots without specifying what happened on each shot.

As has been explained to you so many many many times, SA Hickey's statement still does not agree with your analysis. Here is the part of SA Hickey’s 11/30 statement you purposely left out so you could make this ridiculous claim.

SA Hickey 11/30

At the moment he was almost sitting erect, I heard two reports that I thought were shots and that a peared to me completely different in sound than the first report and which were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.

Maybe you can explain this three shot three hit nonsense with his statement in mind.

There is no way you know this because you have to actually study the witness statements instead of gloss over them and cherry pick from them, but SA Kinney, driver of the SS car, made the same claim as to the bullet impacting JFK’s head and his hair then flying forward

SA Kinney 11/22--- Look at this another two shot witness. If only the HSCA did not do all your thinking for you.

I was driving SS 679-X, follow-up. As we turned off Main Street (left) about 4 minutes from our destination of Trade Mart. The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass. The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of SS 100-X, at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head. With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.
 
*At this time Clint Hill jumped off and ran to the President's car, jumped on the back, and laid out across the trunk in a prone position where he rode the entire trip to the hospital.*

SA Kinney even references Clint Hill leaping off the car at the time of the headshot. So much for Hill's movements being proof of the absolutely ridiculous Z270 shot scenario.

[Andrew Mason]

As has been explained to you so many many many times, SA Hickey's statement still does not agree with your analysis. Here is the part of SA Hickey’s 11/30 statement you purposely left out so you could make this ridiculous claim.

SA Hickey 11/30

At the moment he was almost sitting erect, I heard two reports that I thought were shots and that a peared to me completely different in sound than the first report and which were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.

Maybe you can explain this three shot three hit nonsense with his statement in mind.

The three shot, three hit “nonsense” follows from the abundant evidence that someone was hit on each shot.  So if you think it is nonsense, you need to deal with the evidence.

Hickey did not testify so we can’t be sure.  He did use the word “practically” which suggests almost but not quite no time element between them.  He may have been describing what Mary Woodward described in her 1980s interview, which was that third shot sounded before the reverberations from the second had died out.

There is no way you know this because you have to actually study the witness statements instead of gloss over them and cherry pick from them, but SA Kinney, driver of the SS car, made the same claim as to the bullet impacting JFK’s head and his hair then flying forward

SA Kinney 11/22--- Look at this another two shot witness. If only the HSCA did not do all your thinking for you.

I was driving SS 679-X, follow-up. As we turned off Main Street (left) about 4 minutes from our destination of Trade Mart. The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass. The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of SS 100-X, at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head. With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.
 
*At this time Clint Hill jumped off and ran to the President's car, jumped on the back, and laid out across the trunk in a prone position where he rode the entire trip to the hospital.*

SA Kinney even references Clint Hill leaping off the car at the time of the headshot. So much for Hill's movements being proof of the absolutely ridiculous Z270 shot scenario.

”observed hair flying from the right side of his head” seems like a strange way to describe a head explosion spewing brain and blood (but not hair) in all directions. In that first statement (22Nov63) Kinney said he heard three shots but he was not sure which shots struck JFK. If the second shot that he described as causing JFK’s hair to fly up left him unsure if it struck JFK, that tends to support what Hickey said he observed. If he actually saw the third shot as well, how could he not conclude that JFK was hit by it?

It may be that Kinney was watching JFK at the time of the second shot but was watching Clint Hill at the time of the third shot.  He was driving the car, after all. With Clint Hill running between cars he may have been distracted.  He did make it clear that Hill jumped off after the first shot and before the second (he placed an asterisk after mentioning the first shot and before mentioning the second to denote the time Hill jumped off).

[Dan O'meara]

The three shot, three hit “nonsense” follows from the abundant evidence that someone was hit on each shot.  So if you think it is nonsense, you need to deal with the evidence.

Hickey did not testify so we can’t be sure.  He did use the word “practically” which suggests almost but not quite no time element between them.  He may have been describing what Mary Woodward described in her 1980s interview, which was that third shot sounded before the reverberations from the second had died out.
”observed hair flying from the right side of his head” seems like a strange way to describe a head explosion spewing brain and blood (but not hair) in all directions. In that first statement (22Nov63) Kinney said he heard three shots but he was not sure which shots struck JFK. If the second shot that he described as causing JFK’s hair to fly up left him unsure if it struck JFK, that tends to support what Hickey said he observed. If he actually saw the third shot as well, how could he not conclude that JFK was hit by it?

It may be that Kinney was watching JFK at the time of the second shot but was watching Clint Hill at the time of the third shot.  He was driving the car, after all. With Clint Hill running between cars he may have been distracted.  He did make it clear that Hill jumped off after the first shot and before the second (he placed an asterisk after mentioning the first shot and before mentioning the second to denote the time Hill jumped off).

”observed hair flying from the right side of his head” seems like a strange way to describe a head explosion spewing brain and blood (but not hair) in all directions."

JFK's head literally exploded. Large pieces of skull were blown high into the air and a large section of his scalp was blown over the right side of his head. The observation of hair flying from his head is consistent with this massive injury and is reflected in the words John Templin who was also watching JFK at the time of the head impact:

"But the second shot was probably another forty to fifty foot further down, and it blew the right side of his head off, as near as I could tell. I was close enough that I could see that. I could see his hair depart from his head actually."

Templin's description of the second shot (which he equates with the headshot) is almost exactly the same as Hickey's.
JFK's head explodes yet Hickey's observation of the third shot makes no mention of JFK's head.