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).
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.Evidence, what evidence? That is the point, you have zero evidence of anything. This made-up tripe you keep presenting does not pass as evidence. You cannot even prove there was three shots.
A shot at Z195:
Andrew Mason: “Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination”
“At least 16 witnesses recalled that the President reacted to the first shot by leaning left and bringing his hands to his neck 91. From frame 167 to frame 195 of the Zapruder film the President and First Lady turned to their right to smile and wave at the crowd. No one said that smiling and waving occurred after the first shot. On the contrary, some witnesses recalled that this occurred just before the first shot” JFK only stops waving and looking forward at Z207. He shows no reaction until he emerges from behind the sign. According to the latest version of this goofy theory, he was wounded for a full second before showing a real reaction. JFK, what a trooper, shot through the neck but kept smiling and waving.
A shot at Z270:
Andrew Mason: “Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination”
2. The relative timing of the shots. The 1……….2….3 pattern
There is a significant body of evidence regarding the relative spacing of the shots. The Warren Commission, in stating its conclusion that there were three shots, observed that most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second.26 The Commission appears to have made little use of this evidence in reaching its conclusions, however.
There were at least 47 witnesses who gave evidence of a later second shot fitting this pattern. As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 47 witnesses who provided clear evidence of a shorter separation between the last two shots. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 9 (not counting Emmett Hudson) thought the shots were about equally spaced. The distribution of witnesses shows the high significance of the witness recollection that the last two shots were closer together. If the shot pattern was really the opposite, one would have to explain why only 6 out of 62 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly and how 47 of them randomly made the same mistake.
You do not support your own ridiculous analysis? Actually, I do not blame you. 47 witnesses out of the all the earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza. Not very many at all. Even the 47 is wrong and an inflated number. It is definitely 25% or less of the total. There are more two shot witnesses.
A suspect tally of witnesses you have chosen. 47 in total. A number of them do not support this theory. There are more two shot witnesses than that. You would think that would be a clue.
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).Why do you think Hickey’s and Kinney’s statements need your clarification? How about stop misquoting them in an attempt to bolster this strange theory. They are a straightforward depiction of what they saw and heard. What they saw and heard in no way represents what you have been proposing.
Kinney and Hickey roomed with each other in Dallas. Do you think they might have talked to each other. Guess what they both give the same description of the hair flying forward. Go figure.
