How to debunk the George Hickey theory?

[John Butler]

18 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?

 

 

 

My experts are better than your experts.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

Can you show a few examples of these internally consistent photo/films with no discrepancies.  

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Can you show a few examples of these internally consistent photo/films with no discrepancies.  

You really should watch Mark's model. And stop each time it flashes to show the photos he used to create his model. 

Here's an example. The Betzner photo was taken from far down Elm. Three women stand to the east of the boys (one of whom may be Smith). Because the Stemmons sign is behind them, however, it gives the illusion they are standing right in front of it, when they are really standing in front of it from Betzner's angle, and far to the east of it when one looks at them from right across the street. The angles are tricky, but once one gets a feel for the layout the locations of the witnesses are consistent from film to film and photo to photo. 

I discuss the witnesses and their locations along Elm in excruciating detail, here:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-7b-more-pieces-in-the-plaza

[John Butler]

On 12/8/2021 at 2:24 PM, Pat Speer said:

You really should watch Mark's model. And stop each time it flashes to show the photos he used to create his model. 

I have looked at Mark's model several times.  I don't agree with parts of it.  He does not place the motorcycle policemen correctly.  To me it is just more WC drivel.  He ignores too many witnesses for his model to be correct.

On 12/8/2021 at 2:24 PM, Pat Speer said:

The Betzner photo was taken from far down Elm.

I don't agree.  Betzner was further up Elm Street on the SW corner than Robert Croft.  The SW corner of Elm and Houston is not far down Elm Street.  The red line in Betzner shows the same group of black women in Croft.

How do you reconcile Bronson and Zapruder?  Camera angles again?

Correction here.  I posted the wrong photo for Bronson:

As a reference, the red arrows point to the alleged Alan Smith.  This is essentially the same instant in time.  Perhaps, one second later in Bronson.  

In Zapruder we see 19 people shoulder to shoulder between the lamppost and the Stemmons sign.  That is roughly 40 feet.  Shoulder to shoulder.  We don't see this is Bronson.  The folks there are widely spaced.

Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

9. The alteration of the Zapruder film The initial clue to its alteration was the limousine stop. The Zapruder film does not show such a stop, but the ten closest witnesses all recalled such a stop. Altogether, over 50 witnesses recalled a stop [51]. Even early articles often take this stop for granted [52].

“The pre-eminent authority on the Z-film is John Costella, a PhD physicist with special expertise in the properties of light.53 He is also highly skilled at detecting optical distortions produced via imaging transformations, a skill that is directly pertinent to the Zapruder film. 54 As a simple demonstration (Figure 12), Costella notes the impossible features of Z-232 (i.e., frame 232 of the Zapruder film), which was originally published in LIFE’s 1963 Memorial Edition55 Costella explains that stationary objects should be blurred by the same amount (as one another), while uniformly moving objects should be consistently blurred by a different (but self-consistent) amount. In Z-232, however, this blurring is grossly inconsistent, which could only occur if this frame had been altered.5”

The man says that the Z film is a fraud.  How many examples do you need?  Just one.

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by John Butler

[Mark Tyler]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Costella then accused Horne of being a government disinformation agent.

LOL!  I don't know who is or isn't a government agent, but lest Costella forget that sometimes it's very hard to distinguish MISinformation from DISinformation.

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

Thanks Pat.  I completely agree with you, taking together the whole collection of photos and film frames, everything seems to fit hand and glove, with no contradictions.  When I started the animation project I wasn't explicitly trying to prove or disprove the alteration theories, but one of the useful by-products is that it does seem to prove the integrity of the photographic record.

By contrast the witness evidence is very patchy: some things in the statements are provably correct; other statements are provably wrong; with the remaining statements being moot as there is no independent corroboration either way.  It's still worth trying to make sense of these statements if we can, which is why I encourage everyone to visit your list of witness statements in chapters 5-9 of your online book:

https://www.patspeer.com/

As I have always said in this case, no stone should remain unturned in pursuit of the truth about what really happened in 1963.  It is well worth studying and verifying *ALL* evidence, so I think it's right that people do this regarding the photographic record.  However, having spent some considerable time studying the finer details and checking the timings using objective computer software, I am now 100% certain that this part of the evidence is authentic.  By implication, if any theory contradicts this evidence then the theory must be wrong (such as the HSCA dictabelt acoustics analysis).

Having said that, if anyone thinks I have made a mistake, they are welcome to let me know and I will look into the complaint.  Here is the link to the work if anyone needs it:

https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html

For the EdForum thread with various discussions about the work, have a look here:

 

[Mark Tyler]

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

Can you show a few examples of these internally consistent photo/films with no discrepancies.  

There are some interesting matches that demonstrate how well things fit together around the time of the shots.  Lets start with the Betzner 3 photo at Z186:

Just a second later there was the Willis 5 photo at Z202:

The timing of both of these photos is known very accurately as both photos show Zapruder filming, and then in the Zapruder film we see Betzner and Willis (along with the cars moving in between both view points).  Then there is the Bronson 3 photo which I think was taken at around Z228:

The sync point here is the guy who has his arm raised in the centre (the so called Dark Complected Man), near the umbrella man.  We see him raising his arm at Z226 and it is fully extended by Z228 to make a nice match with Bronson 3:

As per the animation measurements, the limo speed at this point is around 12 MPH, and the positions seem to match this perfectly regarding where the limo was during all of these photos.  Next there is the Altgens 6 photo circa Z255:

Then we have the Moorman photo taken just after the head shot at Z315:

Lastly we have the Altgens 7 photo circa Z400:

All of these photos fit together perfectly for the limo speed, with the Zapruder film providing the overall time-clock.  The position of the limo in the animation during this time-frame shows that this is all perfectly smooth with no sudden jumps or pauses.  The rapid deceleration just after Z255 was probably caused by William Greer momentarily tapping the brakes of the limo just before the head shot (he was looking to the rear for a few seconds which may have caused him to unconsciously slow the car).  This frame of the Muchmore film circa Z313 seems to show the right rear brake light is illuminated:

I think this rapid deceleration, coupled with the brake lights, and the bikes either side suddenly gaining on the limo, may have caused an optical illusion for some witnesses which is why they think the limo stopped.

In summary, the photos above and the films (Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, and Bronson) all dovetail perfectly in the dimensions of time and space.  I don't see how any alteration can be accommodated as everything fits so smoothly in the animated reconstruction and the contents of each image are consistent with each other (right down to the gust of wind that blows the coats of Moorman and Hill at Z313, as shown above).

By contrast, elsewhere in this case we see deception and evidence destruction, such as James Hosty destroying Oswald's threatening note to the FBI just hours after Oswald was killed (and then not mentioning this to the Warren Commission in 1964).  There are so many areas in this case where the authorities should be challenged, but not in terms of the films and photos, and not in terms of George Hickey's behaviour.

[Chris Davidson]

Splitting Gerda's gif(removed the 208-212 splice frames).

z196-207

z213-z223

This gif is running at approx 17fps.

Anybody notice a speed difference?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

btw, between those two previous posted frame spans in the 208-212 spliced area,

I'm still waiting for any photo/film expert to explain the lack of Croft's lower body.

And,while they're at it, the foreground object that traverses Clint's "shoulder to waist" span, where one would expect a cycle cop(piece thereof)to appear.

 

 

 

[John Butler]

12 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I'm still waiting for any photo/film expert to explain the lack of Croft's lower body.

Chris D., 

You have got to have the best eyes ever.  Super laser surgery, maybe lens magnification implants?  Nah, just ribbing you here.  

Great stuff.

Don't hold your breath on some photo/film expert to show up.  Best you will get is perhaps one of the regulars proclaim, and I do mean proclaim, generally without any semblance of evidence, that you are wrong.  They will say something like the films and photos are internally consistent and not fraudulent.  I hear that all the time and generally ignore.

I would guess like a lot of scientists, college professors, or pseudo-intellectuals, these critics will use operational definitions to prove their various conjectures.

Operational definitions allow you to say anything.  

 

[Chris Davidson]

17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Splitting Gerda's gif(removed the 208-212 splice frames).

z196-207

z213-z223

This gif is running at approx 17fps.

Anybody notice a speed difference?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or, you can use BJ Martin from both spans.

Reduce Martin to 86% in the later frames (213-223) and layer the frames(50% opacity) using Martin's helmet as the starting/registration point.

After 4-5 elapsed frames(red boxes), it should give you a better idea on how much farther Martin traveled relative to the same time span in earlier frames.

Remember, the total span of the extant frames including the 208-212 splice = 1.5 seconds.

The gif does not include the 208-212 splice frames.

[Pat Speer]

On 12/8/2021 at 1:22 PM, John Butler said:

I have looked at Mark's model several times.  I don't agree with parts of it.  He does not place the motorcycle policemen correctly.  To me it is just more WC drivel.  He ignores too many witnesses for his model to be correct.

I don't agree.  Betzner was further up Elm Street on the SW corner than Robert Croft.  The SW corner of Elm and Houston is not far down Elm Street.  The red line in Betzner shows the same group of black women in Croft.

How do you reconcile Bronson and Zapruder?  Camera angles again?

As a reference, the red arrows point to the alleged Alan Smith.  This is essentially the same instant in time.  Perhaps, one second later in Bronson.  

In Zapruder we see 19 people shoulder to shoulder between the lamppost and the Stemmons sign.  That is roughly 40 feet.  Shoulder to shoulder.  We don't see this is Bronson.  The folks there are widely spaced.

Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

9. The alteration of the Zapruder film The initial clue to its alteration was the limousine stop. The Zapruder film does not show such a stop, but the ten closest witnesses all recalled such a stop. Altogether, over 50 witnesses recalled a stop [51]. Even early articles often take this stop for granted [52].

“The pre-eminent authority on the Z-film is John Costella, a PhD physicist with special expertise in the properties of light.53 He is also highly skilled at detecting optical distortions produced via imaging transformations, a skill that is directly pertinent to the Zapruder film. 54 As a simple demonstration (Figure 12), Costella notes the impossible features of Z-232 (i.e., frame 232 of the Zapruder film), which was originally published in LIFE’s 1963 Memorial Edition55 Costella explains that stationary objects should be blurred by the same amount (as one another), while uniformly moving objects should be consistently blurred by a different (but self-consistent) amount. In Z-232, however, this blurring is grossly inconsistent, which could only occur if this frame had been altered.5”

The man says that the Z film is a fraud.  How many examples do you need?  Just one.

 

The red arrow on the left does not point to either one of the two guys in the image at right. It points to John Templin, who ID'ed himself in the film numerous times and was standing next to Ernest Brandt. The two young guys are not visible in that frame of the film. Zapruder is filming sharply to his left and they are to the right of his camera. As stated, I spent months going through the images and statements to help identify who was standing where and what they had to say, and there's a clear pattern. Those near the Thornton Freeway sign thought the first shot rang out when Kennedy was out in front of them. Since they were looking to their left, moreover, this probably means just before he reached their location on the street. In any event, those to the east of them uniformly said the first shot rang out after Kennedy had passed them. Thus, there is NO real mystery as to where Kennedy was when the first audible shot rang out.

[John Butler]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The red arrow on the left does not point to either one of the two guys in the image at right. It points to John Templin, who ID'ed himself in the film numerous times and was standing next to Ernest Brandt.

Sorry,

I posted the wrong photo for Bronson.  I uploaded the correct one to the post.  This should correct that.  I have way too many photos and frames.  Many depict the same scene with different interpretations.  Correct photo here:

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The two young guys are not visible in that frame of the film. Zapruder is filming sharply to his left and they are to the right of his camera.

 If Alan Smith and friends are to Zapruder's right, then they should be visible here in Bronson.  Or, later on in Zapruder. 

24 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Those near the Thornton Freeway sign thought the first shot rang out when Kennedy was out in front of them. Since they were looking to their left, moreover, this probably means just before he reached their location on the street. In any event, those to the east of them uniformly said the first shot rang out after Kennedy had passed them. Thus, there is NO real mystery as to where Kennedy was when the first audible shot rang out.

True, to a certain point.  Denise Hazelwood, in my list of witnesses, listed all she could connect to the turn when a shot was fired.  There were a lot.  The whole point of the exercise was to point out that a "right" question was missed.  That question was "where was the president or p. limo when you heard shooting?". 

During the course of that exercise, it came to light that 20% of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said something different than the official story.  That is over 100 witnesses.  Enough to establish reasonable doubt of the Zapruder film and the WC conclusions.  There were many other witnesses I felt that their testimony would have been the same except for the interference of the FBI.  Can't prove that, but it is what I think.     

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Sorry,

I posted the wrong photo for Bronson.  I uploaded the correct one to the post.  This should correct that.  I have way too many photos and frames.  Many depict the same scene with different interpretations.  Correct photo here:

 If Alan Smith and friends are to Zapruder's right, then they should be visible here in Bronson.  Or, later on in Zapruder. 

True, to a certain point.  Denise Hazelwood, in my list of witnesses, listed all she could connect to the turn when a shot was fired.  There were a lot.  The whole point of the exercise was to point out that a "right" question was missed.  That question was "where was the president or p. limo when you heard shooting?". 

During the course of that exercise, it came to light that 20% of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said something different than the official story.  That is over 100 witnesses.  Enough to establish reasonable doubt of the Zapruder film and the WC conclusions.  There were many other witnesses I felt that their testimony would have been the same except for the interference of the FBI.  Can't prove that, but it is what I think.     

The red arrow in your Zapruder frame is not pointing to person being pointed to by a red arrow in the Bronson photo.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Mark Tyler writes:

Quote

In summary, the photos above and the films (Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, and Bronson) all dovetail perfectly in the dimensions of time and space.  I don't see how any alteration can be accommodated as everything fits so smoothly

Alternatively, they have all been carefully faked to match each other.

Maybe John Butler was right after all! Of course, he would still need to explain how on earth it was all done.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Denise doesn't need to explain this to you.

Ah, but she does! She has made a claim, so the burden of proof is on her. Until she justifies her claim, there is no reason for anyone to believe it.

If she is proposing something as substantial as the faking of the Zapruder film (and of the other films that agree with it), she must provide an adequate explanation of how it was done. Specifically, she needs to show how her proposed alterations were performed without requiring a copy of the film to be made.

Until then, it's just empty speculation.

Quote

you would not credit anything she said or anything she referenced to as an explanation. 

I'd be happy to accept it, and I'm sure everyone else would too, provided that her explanation made sense and was consistent with:

• the rest of the photographic evidence and
• expert opinion that the Zapruder film in the National Archives is not a copy.

I hope Denise will turn up and try to rescue her far-fetched theory. But if she has thrown in the towel, would John care to step in and have a go? Does he think the Zapruder film was altered without a copy being made? If so, how was it done?