WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Andrew Mason]

You misquoted Hickey.

?? If you are suggesting that I misrepresented what Hickey said in his statements, please read them again because you have not read them correctly:

November 22, 1963 statement:

"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 that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."


In his November 30, 1963 statement Hickey explains in greater detail the shot sequence:

"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."

 

His first statement was different in key aspects. Kinney reiterated what Hickey stated that a bullet impacted JFK's head and his hair flew forward.

There is no material conflict between Hickey's two statements. Read them again, carefully.

In both he says there were three shots.  In both he describes the first shot and then describes the next two. In his second statement he said the last two were in rapid succession. That does not conflict with what he said in his first statement. It just provides more detail.  In his first statement he stated that as a result of those two shots, he observed JFK's hair to fly up and also observed an impact to his head. In his second statement he clarified which shot impacted his head and which one caused his hair to fly up.  He was able to discern that they were separate and distinct shots.

Altgens in his first press news bulletin read live on the air for NBC minutes after the assassination stated there was there was only two shots.

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?

The HSCA explained the timing of the echoes to the original shot. Maybe you were unaware of this.
HSCA Accoustical analysis

All observers rated the rifle shots as very very loud, and they were unable to understand how they could have been described as a firecracker or backfire. Only the pistol, which was subsonic, produced a moderate loudness.

In the early sixties a firecracker that was very popular before it was banned was the cherry bomb. It was deafening. They were banned in 1966.  By 1978 they had not been around for over a decade so when people were asked whether they thought the rifle sounded like a firecracker, they could only compare it to the firecrackers they knew, which were things that went "pop".

[Jerry Organ]

I never, ever said or suggested that there was a z250 shot. You really need to read more carefully.  z250 is simply the earliest one can place the midpoint between shots 1 and 3.  The second shot as a perceptible time after the midpoint. There are many indicators that the second shot was between z272 and z273.  Not only does JFK's hair lift,

So the wind made his hair flutter. And Hickey couldn't see it anyway.

but the sun visor over Greer's head that was damaged by a bullet fragment also moves between those frames.

More cherrypicks. The wind makes the sun visor move and the hair flutter before Z273.

JBC's wrist changes appearance there and JBC starts to sail forward before falling back onto his wife.

Connally starts to "sail forward" in the Z260s. The wrist began dangling limpy about Z236. Just before that it was, I believe, involuntarily flipping up the Stetson.

[Jerry Organ]

?? If you are suggesting that I misrepresented what Hickey said in his statements, please read them again because you have not read them correctly:

November 22, 1963 statement:

"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 that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."

In his November 30, 1963 statement Hickey explains in greater detail the shot sequence:

"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."

 There is no material conflict between Hickey's two statements. Read them again, carefully.

In both he says there were three shots.  In both he describes the first shot and then describes the next two. In his second statement he said the last two were in rapid succession. That does not conflict with what he said in his first statement. It just provides more detail.  In his first statement he stated that as a result of those two shots, he observed JFK's hair to fly up and also observed an impact to his head. In his second statement he clarified which shot impacted his head and which one caused his hair to fly up.  He was able to discern that they were separate and distinct shots.

Hickey presents another problem for your theory. You claim there was a first shot about Z200-or-so and that witnesses to that saw Kennedy react immediately. Yet Hickey is facing forward in Z206 and reported no reaction by Kennedy to the first shot.

    "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."     --Nov. 22

    "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."     --Nov. 30

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. 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".

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?

Mr. ALTGENS - I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot--the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much---of course at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle.  Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea where the sound came from when you were standing there at No. 3 on Commission Exhibit No. 354?  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.

Notice that when Altgens talks about the first shot, he says "the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions" which means he could have heard more than one loud report that he later combined into a "definite" one.

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.

[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. 

[Jerry Organ]

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

But when one investigates your witness pool, we find a few "two-shot" witnesses who place the "president slumping" as the first of the two shots they discuss (the second is usually the head shot). You interpret the "first" shot among those two shots as the first of your three-shot scenario with two to follow (although those witnesses don't support that), whereas I see their "slumping shot" as the second in a three-shot scenario and the one shot before the head shot. I only suggest they've failed to remember or place the first shot (which I believe missed), which was unexpected and which many witnesses took to be something that was not a gunshot.

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

But the photographic evidence shows Hickey turned rearward near-to-or-just-after the moment of the "slumping" shot in the Z220s in which both Kennedy and Connally appear to react simultaneously. We don't see him in the Z220s but he is facing forward in Z206 (and appears to be similarly positions in Z213) so it's likely to me that he turned rearward only after the second shot at Z223.

In z206 Hickey's face appears to be facing somewhat toward the right.

So it's more likely to you that Hickey cannot see the President in Z206 but can detect a hair flutter that's out of his line-of-sight in Z276 a second after he is photographed in Altgens facing rearward.

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.

The second shot which you place near the early-Z270s. You also claim that the Governor yelled those words as well as "My God, they're going to kill us all" between the Z270s and the head 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.

I doubt Hickey would have admitted to be being turned around from the President after he had heard the sound of the second shot (at Z223) and saw the President lurch forward in response to it ("the hair on the right side of his head flew forward"). I think he shifted the time he was turned around from after the second shot to before the second 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.
  

Hickey meant a disturbance in the Queen Mary followup car (679X) which he was riding in. Agent Landis claimed that after the first shot: "I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, 'What was it? A Fire Cracker?' I remarked, 'I don't know; I don't see any smoke.' So far the lapsed period of time could not have been over two or three seconds."

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).

Where do we see Hickey's body turned completely around?

He may have been crouching with one foot on the floor and a knee on the seat.  But he was not sitting. 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

A little fudge that sounds a lot better that him saying he turned around after hearing the second shot and having seen the President reacted to it.

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.

Witnesses had no reason to gauge the time-span (in a three-shot LN scenario) between the first shot and second shot. I would say most were dismissive towards the first shot ("firecracker", "backfire") and not expecting the loud report to repeat. Only after hearing the second loud report would they have any compulsion to begin gauging the span between the shots. By then, the time-span between shots one and two is no longer available to be gauged, and would seem to be further back in time than it really was.

Altgens took his z256 photo a bit more than 3 seconds after the first shot if the first shot was around z195.

Altgens was pretty vague about the sounds he heard before the "shot" he was sure was "almost simultaneous" with his Z255 photo. "I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions?" The only other shot he was firm abnout was the head shot. Only when pressed, did he reluctantly place a thriod shot between the two shots he was sure of.
Thus, a second shot fired that struck at Z223 would be heard by Altgens 1 3/4 seconds prior to snapping his shutter.

[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.