A Closer Look…

[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.

[Jack Nessan]

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.

[Andrew Mason]

 
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.

47 out of 62 who reported a timing pattern to the shots. So 47 is 75% of those who reported a pattern to the shots.

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.

I have asked you to provide the list of who they are.  Still waiting.  The HSCA study found 17 who recalled only 2 shots and 7 others who recalled 2 or 3 shots.

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.

You seem to agree they both described the second shot as JFK's hair flying forward but did not describe seeing blood or head explosion on the second shot.  I am just saying they saw what they said they saw.  No clarification needed.

[Jack Nessan]

47 out of 62 who reported a timing pattern to the shots. So 47 is 75% of those who reported a pattern to the shots.
I have asked you to provide the list of who they are.  Still waiting.  The HSCA study found 17 who recalled only 2 shots and 7 others who recalled 2 or 3 shots.

You seem to agree they both described the second shot as JFK's hair flying forward but did not describe seeing blood or head explosion on the second shot.  I am just saying they saw what they said they saw.  No clarification needed.

Great math. So now, it is not the HSCA’s 178 total witnesses or the 132 three shot witnesses. It is 62 Andrew Mason predetermined witnesses, and these witness statements have somehow led you to this conclusion there was a shot at Z270. What a mess of logic.

So, by your standards 47 out of 132 and/or 178 witnesses is evidence?  The other 85 and/or 129 witnesses recalling a different three shot pattern were wrong. Only the ones you like are right, and a number of them do not state what you say they do. Just when this whole theory could not be a bigger mess you prove it most definitely can. Where in this mess does it mention 62 Andrew predetermined witnesses.

Andrew Mason: “Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination”

"Of 178 witnesses whose evidence relating to the number of shots was compiled by the HSCA: 17 recalled hearing two; 7 said they heard two or three shots;132 reported hearing exactly three shots; 6 people said they heard four shots; and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. A further 7 bystanders reported hearing 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots.1"
 

Added to the mess is the shot at Z195 which still leaves JFK smiling and waving for at least another second. Something you claim in your paper did not happen. Is the claim made that he reacted immediately, just nonsense? There is no way you could believe both.

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”


You can look the two shot witnesses for yourself. I won’t waste the time. You can’t understand the simple statements of SA Hickey and SA Kinney. This cartoon understanding of a bullet passing by and making JFK’s hair flutter staggers the imagination. Reading witness accounts stating there were two shots would only confuse your already tortured understanding of a simple event. Having the HSCA do your thinking for you is best. You cannot harm anything if you just stay with their analysis. You already know the statements of the two shot witnesses. Repeating them would be useless given you already only can grasp what the HSCA compiled. 

Do you really not understand these simple statements? Probably cannot and continue to promote the three hit mess posted here.

SA Hickey:

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.”

 
SA Hickey11/30 

“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.”

Key SA Kinney phrase is “flying from the right side of his head.”

SA Kinney: 

“At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head”

 

[Andrew Mason]

Great math. So now, it is not the HSCA’s 178 total witnesses or the 132 three shot witnesses. It is 62 Andrew Mason predetermined witnesses, and these witness statements have somehow led you to this conclusion there was a shot at Z270. What a mess of logic.

So, by your standards 47 out of 132 and/or 178 witnesses is evidence?  The other 85 and/or 129 witnesses recalling a different three shot pattern were wrong. Only the ones you like are right, and a number of them do not state what you say they do. Just when this whole theory could not be a bigger mess you prove it most definitely can. Where in this mess does it mention 62 Andrew predetermined witnesses.

Jack, if you are going to respond to posts you should read them first. There were only 62 witnesses, by my count who recalled ANY shot pattern. Not everyone who recalled three shots recalled a pattern to those shots..