Perception of Reality

[Jerry Freeman]

... And stop lying that it's where Hickey saw Kennedy's hair fly away. You lie because you need the tiny hair flutter for your Pet Theory's Z272 shot. The only place Hickey could see the President's hair fly away is the head shot. 

Is that what George Hickey stated?

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.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-hicke.htm

Why do you call people liars?
What is your problem?

Oswald wasn't just a nut, he was Stark Raving Bonkers

People who like to sit around and create all these little illustrations with apparently nothing better to do might be a bit non compos mentis themselves.

[John Mytton]

People who like to sit around and create all these little illustrations with apparently nothing better to do might be a bit non compos mentis themselves.

That's a bit of a non sequitur? but that level of insight is duplicated repeatedly in your posts so I can't say your latest inanity was unexpected.

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

Why would Oswald shoot JFK?
Because he was a nut.

How do you know he was a nut?
Because he shot JFK.

Per the illustration...We know that mother cats carry their young around----
----so there is nothing greatly revealed about this.

Per the illustration...We know that mother cats carry their young around----
----so there is nothing greatly revealed about this.

If only the photo on the right is shown to an audience, the perception is not likely to be that a mother cat is carrying her young around. Whether it is the main stream media’s bias or Oliver Stone’s bias (in his movie JFK) showing only one view in order to promote their bias can be misleading. Sadly, it happens every day.

[Jon Banks]

I agree that there will always be controversy surrounding the JFK assassination case. But there is more to it than just the items that you have outlined. In the US, it became much more fashionable to be antiestablishment and down right hostile to the authorities during the Vietnam War era and subsequent controversies like Watergate, etc. It has never improved and the nutty defund the police movement is an example of that. Couple that widespread attitude with the Oliver Stone JFK movie, and the unavoidable result is that a majority of the people believe in conspiracy. Most of them have no desire to do any research of their own or even entertain the other side of the argument. They just “somehow know” that there was a conspiracy and that is that…

On the cultural angle, I agree with you that people who distrust the government and other elite institutions are more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories about Kennedy's assassination and other CT's. 

My question to you is, do you think the distrust of government and elites is deserved?

IMHO, the government and other institutions in the US have screwed up enough in my lifetime, in terms of lies and incompetence, that the possibility of organizational coverups and conspiracies often can't always be outright dismissed.

Like for example, Watergate, COINTELPRO, Iran Contra, CIA-Mafia assassination plots etc are confirmed conspiracies involving high level government officials. So who is more to blame for the decline in trust of the government? Richard Nixon and George HW Bush, or Oliver Stone?

[Charles Collins]

On the cultural angle, I agree with you that people who distrust the government and other elite institutions are more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories about Kennedy's assassination and other CT's. 

My question to you is, do you think the distrust of government and elites is deserved?

IMHO, the government and other institutions in the US have screwed up enough in my lifetime, in terms of lies and incompetence, that the possibility of organizational coverups and conspiracies often can't always be outright dismissed.

Like for example, Watergate, COINTELPRO, Iran Contra, CIA-Mafia assassination plots etc are confirmed conspiracies involving high level government officials. So who is more to blame for the decline in trust of the government? Richard Nixon and George HW Bush, or Oliver Stone?

The “government,” at least in the US, has been construed as: of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, we (the people) elect the government officials from our midsts. And if they do not serve the people in a good way, they can be voted out of office.

Yes, government officials are people. And people are human and therefore subject to making mistakes and sometimes even being corrupted. We should always question the actions and decisions of those elected officials. And we should try our best to look at all sides of the situations that we learn about through the news media, by whatever source we get the news from, and not just accept what is presented to us as the whole truth. The wholesale condemnation of the government officials as being corrupted (just because they are in power) is not deserved. Sadly, partisan politics and the zealots on either side try their best to portray the other side as evil. And the media loves to try to sell their stories by making them more sensational.

So, to answer your question, I believe that the media and filmmakers, etc. are more to blame (for the decline in trust in the government) than the actual government officials. But in the end analysis, we the people are responsible for making our own attitudes. We need to make the effort to learn the whole truth of the important matters by trying to always look at all viewpoints, not just lazily accept what is shown in the news as the truth. We can and should hold the media and filmmakers just as responsible for presenting the truth to us as we can and should hold the elected officials responsible for doing the right things. Pointing fingers and blaming others for the way things are isn’t going to solve anything. We are responsible for our own thoughts and actions, not someone else. And once we realize that and start making the effort to improve ourselves by learning the whole truth and acting accordingly the decline in trust of the government might just reverse itself. Until then, I have to say that it probably will not….

[Jon Banks]

The “government,” at least in the US, has been construed as: of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, we (the people) elect the government officials from our midsts. And if they do not serve the people in a good way, they can be voted out of office.

Yes, government officials are people. And people are human and therefore subject to making mistakes and sometimes even being corrupted. We should always question the actions and decisions of those elected officials. And we should try our best to look at all sides of the situations that we learn about through the news media, by whatever source we get the news from, and not just accept what is presented to us as the whole truth. The wholesale condemnation of the government officials as being corrupted (just because they are in power) is not deserved. Sadly, partisan politics and the zealots on either side try their best to portray the other side as evil. And the media loves to try to sell their stories by making them more sensational.

So, to answer your question, I believe that the media and filmmakers, etc. are more to blame (for the decline in trust in the government) than the actual government officials. But in the end analysis, we the people are responsible for making our own attitudes. We need to make the effort to learn the whole truth of the important matters by trying to always look at all viewpoints, not just lazily accept what is shown in the news as the truth. We can and should hold the media and filmmakers just as responsible for presenting the truth to us as we can and should hold the elected officials responsible for doing the right things. Pointing fingers and blaming others for the way things are isn’t going to solve anything. We are responsible for our own thoughts and actions, not someone else. And once we realize that and start making the effort to improve ourselves by learning the whole truth and acting accordingly the decline in trust of the government might just reverse itself. Until then, I have to say that it probably will not….

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the role the Media plays in this.

Granted, I agree that the corporate media is largely to blame for exploiting political partisanship and the painting of the opposition political party as “evil”. Fox News and MSNBC are opposite sides of the same coin. In recent years, exploiting political polarization seems to have become a key part of their business models.

Where I disagree is the idea that the mainstream media and even Hollywood promote anti-government sentiment. That seems quite far from the current reality we live in where Oliver Stone, an award winning film maker, can’t find a US distribution company for his most recent JFK assassination film.

The 1991 JFK movie was trashed for the most part by the news media. In fact the news media has been the biggest and most consistent cheerleader for the Warren Report.

Occasionally the news media covers a bombshell story that makes the government look bad but most of the time, they ignore lots of other stuff involving our government that only gets covered in alternative media or foreign media.

And Hollywood has had a close relationship with the Defense Dept going back to WWII. Despite the occasional film like “Platoon”, which Oliver Stone took ten years to make due to disinterest from Hollywood, they most often paint the US military and intelligence services in a positive light.

So while I agree that the media is a factor in political partisanship, I disagree that they are largely to blame for the persistence of conspiracy theories.

People who distrust the government often also distrust the mainstream media. So I don’t see how the media is to blame.

[Walt Cakebread]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the role the Media plays in this.

Granted, I agree that the corporate media is largely to blame for exploiting political partisanship and the painting of the opposition political party as “evil”. Fox News and MSNBC are opposite sides of the same coin. In recent years, exploiting political polarization seems to have become a key part of their business models.

Where I disagree is the idea that the mainstream media and even Hollywood promote anti-government sentiment. That seems quite far from the current reality we live in where Oliver Stone, an award winning film maker, can’t find a US distribution company for his most recent JFK assassination film.

The 1991 JFK movie was trashed for the most part by the news media. In fact the news media has been the biggest and most consistent cheerleader for the Warren Report.

Occasionally the news media covers a bombshell story that makes the government look bad but most of the time, they ignore lots of other stuff involving our government that only gets covered in alternative media or foreign media.

And Hollywood has had a close relationship with the Defense Dept going back to WWII. Despite the occasional film like “Platoon”, which Oliver Stone took ten years to make due to disinterest from Hollywood, they most often paint the US military and intelligence services in a positive light.

So while I agree that the media is a factor in political partisanship, I disagree that they are largely to blame for the persistence of conspiracy theories.

People who distrust the government often also distrust the mainstream media. So I don’t see how the media is to blame.

Thanks Jon..... You're expressing my ideas 

I'm not sure that I distrust our visible representatives in Washington, .....It's the Puppet masters behind the scene  that I distrust.  Of course the visible reps simply jump when their masters pull their strings.... The puppets either Jump and dance or they'll be replaced.

[Jerry Organ]

Is that what George Hickey stated?https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-hicke.htm

    "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. -- Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
     the first report and the last."

Hickey seems to have heard the rifle report of the head shot and the impact on the head as two separate sounds ("there seemed to be practically no time element between them"). In any event, Hickey could not see through the President's head to see the tiny hair flutter in the Z270s.

Why do you call people liars?

Admonishment from the conspiracy loon who bills himself as "I am not a 'CT"'. What sweet irony. 

It's not wrong to call out people who actually lie. CTs wantonly brand entire agencies and police departments as collusive.

What is your problem?
People who like to sit around and create all these little illustrations with apparently nothing better to do might be a bit non compos mentis themselves.

Rather than lazily proclaim there's something misleading in an illustration or the renderer is insane, why don't Mason and you do some worthwhile 3D work of your own to prove that Hickey could see the President's hair flutter in the Z270s.