Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Magic Bullet  (Read 94064 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #224 on: May 28, 2018, 07:11:21 PM »
Advertisement
The frontal neck wound never traversed the body and the entry wound in the back never traversed the body . At what point did the " Magic Bullet " become the "Magic Bullet" . It's quite obvious that per Humes, the shot in JFK's back ended at the little finger knuckle and it was angled down at a 45 to 60 degree angle. Now if there is not a path through the president by either bullet , then there should have been two bullets left in JFK. Fords movement of the back wound to the base of the back of the neck was to say the least a move that was very debatable and quite dishonest to say the least. Now if Humes says that the back wound did not extend past the little finger knuckle , then it does not matter where Ford would have placed the back wound because per Humes the path in the back was short and at a 45 to 60 degree downward angle. We know on thing for sure, the wound in the back of JFK was lower than what the front entry wound was on JFK !

Show us where Ford moved the wound from the 14cm x I4cm location noted on the face sheet.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 07:13:19 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #224 on: May 28, 2018, 07:11:21 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #225 on: May 28, 2018, 07:22:13 PM »
You missed Hickey's observation (18 H 762):
  • 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.

That is consistent with what Kinney reported on the second shot, although Kinney is not as clear.

Now, if you follow the evidence, Hickey says he turned and looked at the President just before the second shot and continued to look as the third shot sounded. In Altgens' photo taken at z256, Hickey is still turned to the rear. So Hickey's observations are consistent only with the second shot after z256, which is also what Altgens said. This also fits with the 40+ witnesses who said that the last two shots were closer together. It also fits with the 22+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot.



No, both Hickey and Kinney were clear with their descriptions of the Assassination. Using Hickey's later statement and misrepresenting Kinney's statement is your embellishment. These two statements could not be clearer. What is not clear is why you want to misrepresent them.

11/22/63
"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."

Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent

,.... 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


------------------------------------------------------------------


Elizabeth Loftus explains why Hickey's story changed with time and no longer matches Kinney.

"Ask Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist who pioneered the study of false memory ? what happens when people remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently than how they happened.

She has conducted hundreds of experiments on more than 30,000 people over the past 40 years. She has found that a person's memory is highly susceptible to suggestions or insinuations from conversations with other people or from watching, reading or listening to news stories.
Most people, she says, think of their memory as a recording device that they can turn on and off, one that records everything precisely. But she says it is more pliable.

Think, for example, of a conversation with a relative who recounts an event as if it was firsthand but it really happened to you, she says. In those instances, the person may have heard about an event often, and over time it became so familiar that it felt like the person's own experience.

She says everyone also embellishes memories or adds to them when they recount them, and over time those changes become part of the memory."

"Frankly, we are all vulnerable to having our memories tampered with," she says. "Your memory is not a recording device. It's more like a Wikipedia page. You can change it, but other people can, too."


Maybe it is time to dump the witness compilation if you don't even understand their origins.


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #226 on: May 28, 2018, 07:23:00 PM »
Show us where Ford moved the wound from the 14cm x I4cm location noted on the face sheet.

 As an admitted simpleton I just wonder why we never see a simple diagram of a back and where Ford locates the wound Generally we see , I believe, a side angle shot that includes a line for the trajectory of the bullet

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #226 on: May 28, 2018, 07:23:00 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
    • SPMLaw
Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #227 on: May 28, 2018, 11:14:25 PM »
No, both Hickey and Kinney were clear with their descriptions of the Assassination. Using Hickey's later statement and misrepresenting Kinney's statement is your embellishment. These two statements could not be clearer. What is not clear is why you want to misrepresent them.

11/22/63
"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."

Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent

,.... 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
You are deliberately misreading Hickey's first statement.  He refers to two shots. On those two shots he describes two things happening. Those two things were: JFK's hair flew forward and JFK was hit on the head.  There is no reason to believe that both things happened on each of the two shots nor is there any reason to believe that these things happened on one shot and nothing happened on the other.  So it is ambiguous as to what happened on each shot.  He clarifies this on his subsequent statement. 

Now, if we did not see JFK's hair fly forward after Hickey turned around and before the head shot, we might be justified in saying that he was mistaken.  But when we see JFK's hair fly up like that just before Greer turns around (which he said he did almost simultaneously with the second shot), it does make sense. The alternative is to suppose that he just guessed that JFK's hair flew forward as if the bullet just missed his head and that it was a remarkable coincidence that his hair does fly forward just like he described.

Quote
Elizabeth Loftus explains why Hickey's story changed with time and no longer matches Kinney.

"Ask Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist who pioneered the study of false memory ? what happens when people remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently than how they happened.

She has conducted hundreds of experiments on more than 30,000 people over the past 40 years. She has found that a person's memory is highly susceptible to suggestions or insinuations from conversations with other people or from watching, reading or listening to news stories.
Most people, she says, think of their memory as a recording device that they can turn on and off, one that records everything precisely. But she says it is more pliable.

Think, for example, of a conversation with a relative who recounts an event as if it was firsthand but it really happened to you, she says. In those instances, the person may have heard about an event often, and over time it became so familiar that it felt like the person's own experience.

She says everyone also embellishes memories or adds to them when they recount them, and over time those changes become part of the memory."

"Frankly, we are all vulnerable to having our memories tampered with," she says. "Your memory is not a recording device. It's more like a Wikipedia page. You can change it, but other people can, too."


Maybe it is time to dump the witness compilation if you don't even understand their origins.
Witnesses may or may not be reliable.  The key is corroboration. In Hickey's case, there is very good corroboration: you can see what he describes in the zfilm.  How did he do that? Did he get a message about his hair flying forward in a message from God?  Did he study the zfilm before Nov. 30/63?  If not, it is difficult to understand how he could have described what is seen on the zfilm without actually having observed it.

Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #228 on: May 29, 2018, 06:04:50 AM »
Your point seems to be that a shot on a downward 17 degree cannot enter JFK's back and exit his throat in a way that matches the vertical positions of his wounds. That it can match those positions is easily demonstrated by the Croft photo with a downward 17 degree arrow superimposed on it. It also shows that the path goes above JBC's seatback.


I believe, according  to the HSCA and executive sessions of the WC, the wound in the front of JFK's

neck was higher than the wound in the back. If he was bent over tying his shoes laces your trajectory

might work.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #228 on: May 29, 2018, 06:04:50 AM »


Offline Michael Chambers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #229 on: May 29, 2018, 07:17:37 AM »
I believe it is back to front entrance and exit and downward trajectory directly in line with the bullet hitting the windscreen place. :D Walk:

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #230 on: May 29, 2018, 02:09:37 PM »
You are deliberately misreading Hickey's first statement.  He refers to two shots. On those two shots he describes two things happening. Those two things were: JFK's hair flew forward and JFK was hit on the head.  There is no reason to believe that both things happened on each of the two shots nor is there any reason to believe that these things happened on one shot and nothing happened on the other.  So it is ambiguous as to what happened on each shot.  He clarifies this on his subsequent statement. 

Now, if we did not see JFK's hair fly forward after Hickey turned around and before the head shot, we might be justified in saying that he was mistaken.  But when we see JFK's hair fly up like that just before Greer turns around (which he said he did almost simultaneously with the second shot), it does make sense. The alternative is to suppose that he just guessed that JFK's hair flew forward as if the bullet just missed his head and that it was a remarkable coincidence that his hair does fly forward just like he described.
Witnesses may or may not be reliable.  The key is corroboration. In Hickey's case, there is very good corroboration: you can see what he describes in the zfilm.  How did he do that? Did he get a message about his hair flying forward in a message from God?  Did he study the zfilm before Nov. 30/63?  If not, it is difficult to understand how he could have described what is seen on the zfilm without actually having observed it.

This exactly what Elizabeth Loftus was referring to --in other people can influence memory.
Hickey and Kinney, who roomed together on assignments,  gave very similar statements and are also the only two eyewitnesses to make a statements claiming to see the hair fly forward due to the impact of the bullet.

It is obvious you know what Hickey meant by

"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."

Otherwise you would be quoting what he first stated instead of later statements and trying to explain away the first statement.

-----------------------------------------


These witness statements don't require explanations to understand them. They speak for themselves. If you feel the need to explain them then you are misinterpreting what they said. The eyewitnesses changed their stories over time, the later statements incorporate things they were told not that they saw.




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #230 on: May 29, 2018, 02:09:37 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
    • SPMLaw
Re: The Magic Bullet
« Reply #231 on: May 29, 2018, 03:07:31 PM »
These witness statements don't require explanations to understand them. They speak for themselves. If you feel the need to explain them then you are misinterpreting what they said. The eyewitnesses changed their stories over time, the later statements incorporate things they were told not that they saw.

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?