How to debunk the George Hickey theory?

[John Butler]

Although I have no way to prove it, these boys could be Alan and friends.  I cannot find any image of these boys in Dealey Plaza in any media during the JFKA event.  This was taken some time after the event.  I suspect these boys ran over from Main Street.  If middle aged, portly Altens could beat the p. limo to Elm Street these boys could have easily run over from Main to see the action where everyone is going after the assassination.  Where were they going?  To the Triple Underpass where the alleged shooting came from. 

Alleged Alan and friends.

Edited December 5, 2021 by John Butler

[Ron Bulman]

A, B, C, and D are running to the Grassy Knoll, not the Trippel overpass.  The Hickey story is still bullshit.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

I have yet to see any proof to back up such statements as this from you.  Show me how you know this to be true and maybe I will pay more attention.

Well, you could start by clicking on the link I've provided a couple of times already, most recently in the comment immediately above yours. Here it is again:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

That PDF document is an open letter in response to Doug Horne by Roland Zavada, who played a large part in inventing Kodachrome film and the K12 process. It quotes the conclusion of Prof. Raymond Fielding, another expert in film technology, that the film in the Archives is the original and not a copy.

Zavada wrote a technical report about the Zapruder film in which he explains why the film is not a copy. You can find a link to it, as well as related articles, all of which are worth reading, here:

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

Both Zavada and Fielding inspected the actual film that's in the Archives. Both of them know what they are talking about. Both of them concluded that the film is not a copy.

Until another expert comes up with a different conclusion, there's no good reason for any non-expert to doubt that the film in the Archives is the actual film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination.

Now, given that the film is not a copy, how were Denise's and John's alterations performed?

[Denise Hazelwood]

Here are the boys in Altgens 6. They are in front of the TSBD  on Elm Street standing in the roadway before the access road curb begins.

[Denise Hazelwood]

Here is the shorter boy in the dark top in the Couch film, just starting to run. His position is more apparent I the Couch film.  He is standing still at the very far right edge. This frame is just after he starts to run along with the motorcade.

[John Butler]

Denise,

We'll just have to disagree.  One or two random boys don't fit the news article and what Alan said.  

In the Altgens photo, the pair of boys is behind the VP chase car.  There is no way for that perspective, SE corner of TSBD,  to be correct.  Behind them is one of the Smith police officers. I believe Joe Marshall Smith.  He was stationed at the corner of the Dal-Tex to control west bound traffic on Elm Street and control the crowd in that area.  With him was Welcome Barrett in the north Houston intersection of Elm, and Edgar Leon Smith standing under the windows of the Court Records Building.

I provide this information so that you can see these folks are on the east side of Houston and in the case of Barrett in the north intersection crosswalk.

Edited December 6, 2021 by John Butler

[Denise Hazelwood]

13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

A, B, C, and D are running to the Grassy Knoll, not the Trippel overpass.  The Hickey story is still bullshit.

As I demonstrate in my documentary (Part 9: "The Acoustics") the acoustical perception of the Hickey shot would have caused Douglas Jackson (the "Knoll Rider") and Hargis to perceive a shot as having come from the knoll. Note the Acoustical Perception diagrams provided to the HSCA by the acoustical experts, which fit their positions EXACTLY. Also note that that Hickey's position was on the road in front of the knoll, so a shot would have sounded from that direction. And seeing motorcycle officers rushing up the knoll, others naturally assumed a shot came from there. But we also know from Lee Bowers that there was no one shooting from his side of the fence (the two men he describes were on the  street side of the fence--probably Emmett Hudson and the fellow he was with). The Hickey shot makes perfect sense. But the first head shot had already occurred--when the press limo was finishing the turn onto Elm St. 

I believe that you are so resistant to the idea of a Hickey shot because people have been so conditioned by the extant Z-film into thinking there was a "back, and to the left" head snap, but that was the product of film alteration, as Doug Horne notes. If you pay attention to Mary Moorman's actual words, you will note that the head shot she saw was the one after her photograph, when shots were still being fired. She thought her picture was simultaneous with the "first" shot only because Kennedy was "slumped" in her picture. On one of her same day interviews, she described hearing "three or four" shots that she was "sure of" (leaving open the possibility of more than 3 or 4 that she was less sure of), later settling on "3". Malcolm Summers notes the head shot occurring "right about where he was at." The FBI visual aid model puts the pressure limo close to the bottom of the stairs. Greg Burnham's "other" Zapruder film also puts the limo close to the bottom of the stairs for the head shot.

[Denise Hazelwood]

John, don't forget that the curb for the access road in front of the TSBD doesn't begin right there at the intersection, but somewhat away from the intersection farther down Elm Street. As I noted, the Couch film makes it more clear that the boy in the dark jacket is to the west of Houston St. The appearance that these boys are on the far side of Houston St is an optical illusion. Yes, they are behind the VP follow-up car at the end of the its turn.  Houston St. is behind them. 

[John Butler]

20 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

John, don't forget that the curb for the access road in front of the TSBD doesn't begin right there at the intersection, but somewhat away from the intersection farther down Elm Street. As I noted, the Couch film makes it more clear that the boy in the dark jacket is to the west of Houston St. The appearance that these boys are on the far side of Houston St is an optical illusion. Yes, they are behind the VP follow-up car at the end of the its turn.  Houston St. is behind them. 

Let's compare Altgens 6 and Altgens 5 in that area on the east side of Houston Street.  Clearly seen here.

We can see that Officer Smith is on the east side of Houston Street by the Dal-Tex.  The two boys in Altgens 6 are not there.  We only have a young black kid.  Now Altgens 6.  There is just a few seconds between them.

Where is the black boy near Officer Smith in Algens 5 at in Altgens 6?  Where are the two boys near Officer Smith in Altgens 6 at in Altgens 5.  In fact, if you compare Altgens 5, Altgens 6, and any Zapruder frame showing the area they are all different.  Chris Bristow said there was one who could be there, but I couldn't see it.  This idea is years old and was first formulated by Jack White.

As I said earlier Altgens 6 is a twisty, quirky old thing.  There are many points in the photo to highlight its phoniness. 

In Zapruder, we see neither the two boys or the one.  Including Zapruder may not be a fair argument since that part of East Houston appears to be blocked from view.  But, the argument that the people in all three are different is still valid.   

Edited December 6, 2021 by John Butler

[Denise Hazelwood]

John,

You were contending that there were no boys underneath the window in front of the TSBD. I was showing you that there were. You were also contending that there was a shot when the limo was on Main St. I was demonstrating that there was not. The "blue-gray building" didn't appear until 1978, when it showed up in conjunction with the "tunnel" of the Triple Underpass. I don't know how the "building" showed up, but I don't see it in White's handwritten notes or in his original "Epilogue" article. The "Main Street" anomaly of Alan Smith's account is easily explained by a lack of familiarity with street names.  

I will point out that you can also see the running boy at the very beginning of the Wiegman film, but he's more difficult to identify, as it goes by so quickly. Note that the W film does not show much of the TSBD west of the doorway.

[Denise Hazelwood]

John,

Your Altgens 5 officer is interesting. But let me point out a few differences. In Altgens 6, the one-way arrow sign is about level with the officer's head, whereas in #5, it is well above his head. So probably not the same sign. The people are different, too, but that can be explained by people moving around (as Altgens did between the time he took #5 and #6), including Officer Smith. I also point out that in #6, the VP follow-up car blocks the camera's view of people who might be standing on the other side of the car. There could be additional boys there.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Denise Hazelwood writes:

Quote

resistant to the idea of a Hickey shot because people have been so conditioned by the extant Z-film into thinking there was a "back, and to the left" head snap, but that was the product of film alteration, as Doug Horne notes.

Horne's speculations about the Zapruder film cannot be correct, for the technical reasons I gave in my previous post. Denise has not yet addressed this problem.

We can be sure that the 'back and to the left' movement happened, because this part of the Zapruder film is consistent with what we see in the Nix and Muchmore films, as well as the Moorman photo. And perhaps the Bronson film, too, depending on exactly what alterations she is proposing.

Once Denise gets around to explaining how the Zapruder film was faked, she will also need to explain how the Nix film was faked, how the Muchmore film was faked, how the Moorman photo was faked, and perhaps how the Bronson film was faked. Proper, detailed explanations, please, not vague hand-waving and appeals to magic.

Quote

Greg Burnham's "other" Zapruder film

[Slaps forehead]

If you suspend your critical faculties enough, you'll believe any far-fetched claim.

[John Butler]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Once Denise gets around to explaining how the Zapruder film was faked, she will also need to explain how the Nix film was faked, how the Muchmore film was faked, how the Moorman photo was faked, and perhaps how the Bronson film was faked. Proper, detailed explanations, please, not vague hand-waving and appeals to magic.

Denise doesn't need to explain this to you.  First off, you would not credit anything she said or anything she referenced to as an explanation.

The same goes for me.  But, since I am being kind-hearted this afternoon I will send this reference.  You will find all you need to know here:

JFK Symposium: "The Zapruder Film: Is Seeing Believing in the Assassination of JFK?"

The Zapruder Film Symposium, which was organized and moderated by Dr. James H. Fetzer on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota, 9-11 May 2003, may well prove to have been among the most important conferences in the history of the study of the death of JFK.

These fellows will answer all of your questions on the Zapruder film.  Just watch their presentations.  

James Fetzer

John Costella

David Healey

David Mantik

Jack White

David Lifton

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

The Zapruder Film Symposium, which was organized and moderated by Dr. James H. Fetzer on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota, 9-11 May 2003, may well prove to have been among the most important conferences in the history of the study of the death of JFK.

 

These fellows will answer all of your questions on the Zapruder film.  Just watch their presentations.  

James Fetzer

John Costella

David Healey

David Mantik

Jack White

David Lifton

 

John,

Why should we take any of these people seriously when you refuse to acknowledge the work of actual photographic experts like Roland Zavada, who have confirmed that the Zapruder film in the National Archives is not a copy? At this late date, do you really expect us to go along with the thoroughly debunked hypotheses of people like Jack White, who believe that the moon landing and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were faked? Or John Costella, who believed there were "sensors" in Dealey Plaza tracking his every move? Or James Fetzer, who has been banned from multiple JFK assassination forums?

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

John,

Why should we take any of these people seriously when you refuse to acknowledge the work of actual photographic experts like Roland Zavada, who have confirmed that the Zapruder film in the National Archives is not a copy? At this late date, do you really expect us to go along with the thoroughly debunked hypotheses of people like Jack White, who believe that the moon landing and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were faked? Or John Costella, who believed there were "sensors" in Dealey Plaza tracking his every move? Or James Fetzer, who has been banned from multiple JFK assassination forums?

 

 

 

A little background info may be helpful. When Horne's book came out, Fetzer took to this forum singing its praises, and claimed it confirmed that the Z-film was fake. This enraged John Costella, who Fetzer had long claimed was the top expert on the film. You see, Costella had concluded that the film was internally consistent, and that no frames had been removed, etc. He concluded that the whole film would have to have been a fake, and that the once-popular theory a limo stop or a head shot was removed from the original film was inaccurate. Costella then accused Horne of being a government disinformation agent. The point is, then, that those holding the film was faked can't agree on the extent it was faked or how it was faked, and the whole argument is weak sauce.

Should one seek to go back through the archives of this forum, one will see how Tink Thompson and I embarrassed Fetzer and his devotees by showing how the supposed eyewitnesses to a limo stop were mostly non-witnesses to a limo stop, with many specifying that the limo did not stop. 

As far as IDing witnesses on Elm Street, I spent some time on this in 2019 and IDed a few never before IDed, and matched up a number of photos where one can see that there are no discrepancies between the films and photos. Mark Tyler's study of the films and photos for his model confirmed this work. I recommend anyone doubting the integrity of the films and photos to watch Mark's model, and stop when the photos come up so one can see the angles from which the photos were taken.