You have to read their statements before you can analyse them. What does "I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." tell you about what happened on the first of those two shots?
Exactly, read the statement as it is stated not read into the statement what you want it to say. He said exactly what happened, the bullet impacted JFK's head and his hair flew forward. Sounds a whole lot like Z313. He also said the last two were like they were one shot.
George Hickey 11/30--- second statement
"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."
How can that ever be misconstrued as being a shot at Z270 making his hair somehow move followed by a pause and then a shot at Z313 that really does make his hair and much more fly forward. There is no possible way to even explain the rational that is behind thinking of this nature.
Is this the same type of analysis you are applying to other eyewitness statements? It would have to be to come up with an imaginary shot at Z270.