How to debunk the George Hickey theory?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

those holding the film was faked can't agree on the extent it was faked or how it was faked

Good point. That's a pretty strong clue that these people are working from a pre-conceived assumption rather than objectively going where the evidence leads. I really want the Zapruder film to be a fake! Let's see how many anomalies I can spot! Who cares if I can't explain how it was done? I really like the idea of huge and impractical conspiracies!

Quote

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.

I recall that when I began lurking here, there was a Fetzer v Thompson exchange, presumably to do with the Zapruder film, which got rather heated. It was clear that only one of the two leading participants had his head screwed on. I wasn't surprised when, years later, Fetzer was claiming that pretty much every bad thing that had ever happened in the world was a false-flag operation created by the lizard people (I'm exaggerating, but not by much).

It's strange that so many of the far-fetched claims, such as the limo stop, keep rising up like zombies. They get debunked, then years later they reappear, only to get debunked again; repeat ad nauseam. I suppose the solution is to keep chipping away and eventually enough people will get the message.

Quote

Costella then accused Horne of being a government disinformation agent.

Interesting. If I wanted to discredit critics of the lone-nut theory in the eyes of the public, the first thing I'd do is recruit disinformation agents and get them to promote the most far-fetched conspiracy theories they could think of. Then I'd persuade the media to do what it in fact does: push the message that all those JFK conspiracy theorists are no different from moon-landings deniers.

As Jonathan has reminded us, the most prominent of the early everything-is-a-fake merchants, Jack White, fruitcake-in-chief, was indeed a moon-landings denier.

Coincidence? Well, in this case it probably is. There are plenty of people who genuinely interpret events in terms of enormous conspiracies run by all-powerful Bad Guys. And the JFK assassination, as an unsolved crime with a wide range of potential suspects, can be expected to attract its fair share of these people.

All the same, it wouldn't surprise me if there has been some sort of official promotion of outlandish conspiracy theories at some point in the last 58 years.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[John Butler]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There are plenty of people who genuinely interpret events in terms of enormous conspiracies run by all-powerful Bad Guys.

Powerful Bad Guys in one of the 20th Century's greatest conspiracy-

Lyndon Johnson

J. Edgar Hoover

Allen Dulles

James Rowley

Joint Chiefs of Staff

ONI head

Carlos Marcello and others of the same ilk

And, a host of henchmen in and out of the various government agencies.

Earle Cabell

Chief Curry

Captain Fritz

And, many others in Dallas

Earl Warren

Warren Commission lawyers

Modern day disinformation and gaslighting specialists

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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

I disagree.  It is.  What is different is the two scenes are different showing fraud in one or both.  Your "internally consistent" photos/frames are blown out of the water by the two.

I intentionally used Z frame 157.  It is perhaps one of the worst of the Z frames for content fraud in the whole film.  Although there are more, I give you as examples Phil Willis and the VP support vehicle.

[Chris Davidson]

On 12/8/2021 at 11:02 PM, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

 

 

The object traversing Clint(red line through it)) is (more than likely) the altered remnants of Croft's wife's skirt(if that's who's next to him at extant z184) having backed up, out from the street.

By the time extant z212 rolled around they were separated by plenty of spacing.

That, and it would be impossible for Croft's wife to appear in front of Clint as she is physically behind him.

I copied Croft and skirt from the first frame(z184) and inserted him for comparison(position/size/remnant) towards the end.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Chris Davidson
FRAME 184 NOT 186

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

I disagree.  It is.  What is different is the two scenes are different showing fraud in one or both.  Your "internally consistent" photos/frames are blown out of the water by the two.

I intentionally used Z frame 157.  It is perhaps one of the worst of the Z frames for content fraud in the whole film.  Although there are more, I give you as examples Phil Willis and the VP support vehicle.

Well, you are 100% wrong. It's like you're saying Jack Ruby sat next to Kennedy in the limousine. He did not.

 

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, you are 100% wrong. It's like you're saying Jack Ruby sat next to Kennedy in the limousine. He did not.

 

Wait.  Pat, are you saying Ruby shot Oswald and JFK (from inside the limo?)  I thought Hickey did it . . .  That's almost absurd as John's original claim JFK was shot on Main street . . .

[Mark Tyler]

On 12/8/2021 at 9:22 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.

Fair enough John, you don't accept all of my judgements.  I'm a free speech, free thinking kind of guy, so I think you have every right to defend your point of view.  However, to say I have ignored witnesses is simply untrue as my compiled list of over 400 witnesses testifies (all neatly ordered into a table so you can dissect the work in a spreadsheet program):

https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv

On the web page above there is a handy search box just above the data, so when you type in "smith" to this box you will see all of the witnesses filtered by that name.  To download the data onto your PC click the "Raw" button and save the data via the web browser (typically Ctrl+S).

If you think the bike positions are wrong, can you post the photos which prove this?  Here are the photos which I think prove the current animation bike formation (3-2-3) is correct:

Most of the witnesses are simply too vague to draw firm conclusions regarding the shots fired.  Then we have the problem of witnesses changing their minds.  For example we have Bill Newman who was interviewed on the day and he was firmly of the view he only heard 2 shots, and he specifically said he didn't hear a third shot as shown by this video at 11:35 (this looks to be about an hour or so after the shooting):

Just 2 days later the FBI said he reported a third shot:

"He said the President was hit on the right side of the head with the third shot" - 22H843 - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0437a.htm

In these cases I take the earliest, firmest, and most complete statement as I think it will be the most accurate and the least tainted by suggestibility (such as from a persuasive TV/FBI interviewer repeatedly telling him there was a third shot).  This isn't cherry-picking or ignoring evidence, it's a rational judgement based on evaluating the evidence.  If anyone on either side of the debate wants to inform me of new evidence then I'm always willing to listen, and adjust my position if required.  My views on this case are not frozen in aspic, and I'm not reading from a script, so I'm always willing to learn.

Just to clarify, I'm not defending the official Warren Commission verdict, so someone may see my work as "drivel" from their point of view, but to say "WC drivel" is factually incorrect.  In other words, even though I think the photos are authentic, it doesn't automatically mean I am a Warren Commission supporter and think the authorities behaved perfectly.

[Sean Coleman]

On 11/8/2021 at 12:04 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Zero eyewitnesses.

Zero earwitnesses.

I always thought this theory was filed in the same drawer as the flechette and the sewer drain shot

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

Fair enough John, you don't accept all of my judgements.  I'm a free speech, free thinking kind of guy, so I think you have every right to defend your point of view.  However, to say I have ignored witnesses is simply untrue as my compiled list of over 400 witnesses testifies (all neatly ordered into a table so you can dissect the work in a spreadsheet program):

If that is the case, then your animation should show shooting in the intersection of Elm and Houston or in front of the TSBD.  Over 100 witnesses said this.

This is what I object to:

You have the two groups of Motorcycle Policemen broken apart when in actuality they maintained their respective formations with the exception of turns.  3 bikes could easily make turns on the motorcade route.  5 bikes had to separate into 3 in the turn first and then 2 more followed.  This is what they said they did in the turns. They would rebuild their formation after the turn.

You show something different which I believe is inaccurate.  You should probably show only what the films/photos/witnesses show.  Of course, if you do that you will not have much of a motorcade.  

We have no way to know what they did on Houston Street.  I can’t find any film or photos that show the motorbikes on Houston Street.  Certainly not in the formations that you show.

There were two groups of motorcycle officers at the beginning of the motorcade.  These were the Advance and Lead Motorcycles.  The Advance Motorcycles went first:

Advance (3):                                         Lead (5):

1.     Sgt S. Q. Bellah                            Sgt. Stavis Ellis

2.     Officer Glen C. McBride              Officer E. D. Brewer

3.     Officer J. B. Garrick                     Officer Harold B. Freeman

                                                              Officer W. G. Lumpkin

                                                              Officer Leon E. Grey

These officers maintained their motorcycle formations after the many turns they made on the route as they were instructed.

In the Patsy Paschall film we see a lead group, the Advance Motorcycles of 3 men, and in the background the second group of 5 men, the Lead Motorcycles.  This is hard to see, but stick with it.

These men have made many turns since leaving the airfield and began their course through Dallas.  Here we see 3 Advance motorbikes and then to the left (right hand) another group of 5.  They are in formation since turning on to Main Street.  They made many turns between the airfield and Dealey Plaza this way. 

You can’t expect them to do anything different from what they had already done.  They were there to protect the president and would not be able to do that as shown in your motorcade animation.  Or, at least claimed to be there to do that.

Robert Hughes film:

The Hughes film does not show any motorcycle cops in the formation that Mark has.  They don’t show any.  Except at the end of the film there is some movement that can be seen in through the crowd which maybe the motorbikes or the Lead Car.

Orville Nix film:

No information on motorbikes.

Marie Muchmore:

This film does not show the Advance Motorcycles.  It does show the Lead Motorcycles making the turn with 3 bikes making the turn first and 2 follow directly with little distance between.  Afterwards, we see the Lead Car.  These bikes in the turn are not the Advance Motorcycles.  Look at the Patsy Paschall scene.  She filmed from the Old Court House.  The Advance Motorcycles are getting ready to make the turn onto Houston.

John Martin film:

Shows basically what the Muchmore film shows.

Charles Bronson:

No information

AMIPA film:

3 Advance Motorcycles on Main Street at Market Street.

Emily Bond photo:

3 Advance Motorcycles in the foreground starting to make the turn with the Lead Motorcycles in the background.

Richard Bothun photo:

Basically, the same as Emily Bond.  In fact, they could be the same photo.

Elsie Dorman film:

Has no information on the motorcycle groups.

To sum up there is no information on how the Motorcycle groups appear on Houston Street.  In all films/photos they are in formation with the only break is when the Lead Motorcycles made a turn.  They would break into two groups of 3 bikes and 2 bikes.  It was easier to make the turn that way.  After the turn the Lead Motorbikes would regroup.  This is what we see in the film/photo scenes concerning the two groups.

Logically, we know the two groups of motorbikes did travel Houston Street.  But, we have no information on how they did that.

Edited December 12, 2021 by John Butler

[Denise Hazelwood]

Sorry I've been away. Just a few points to address some of the comments made above. Here's the first. 

Someone above suggested that if my first shot theory is correct, the Zapruder film would show blood running down the President's face.

My response is that the Zapruder film is altered. Thanks to "blurs" and "reflections" and "shadow" effects and "blank-outs" and what-not, there are very few frames where we actually see JFK's face.  Nevertheless, there are hints of "blood running down the face" even in the extant film. I'll try to give a few examples (in no special order). Again, it's only in the rare frame that we actually see Kennedy's features, which could have been composited in at Hawkeye Works before Doug Horne's 2nd NPIC event.

Here's one frame to demonstrate crude film alteration and how blood on the face could have been hidden. Z225 is the first frame showing JFK's head after being hidden by the Stemmons sign, and the first of the Lightbox "Close Up" sequence showing Kennedy's "face.". Note JFK's too-long left arm. Note how the place where his tie should be is too white. Note how large his right shirt cuff is, and how his right hand seems detached from the rest of his arm (tilted upward at an extreme angle). Then note how JFK's face is divided exactly down the center with the rightsize of his face somehow having a "damaged" aspect to the film .  The right side of JFK's face is in shadow, but the shadow has a reddish tint. 

More to come.

[Denise Hazelwood]

Z227. Note how the limo flag comes between the hand of the Dark Complected Man and the camera's point of view. This is a physical impossibility, but is explainable by film alteration. The Dark Complected Man's "hand" is also about as large as his head. This image is fairly typical in that JFK's face is "blanked" out. Notice how the tan of JFK's face doesn't even meet his hair. In fact, his face is mostly a lopsided rectangle: a straight vertical edge on the right, a diagonal slash across the top, a vertical edge extending down to the middle of his shirt cuff (with what appears to be his right ear to the left of that edge) and then the bottom edge of this "lopsided triangle" between the two splotches of light. Connally appears to be turned well to his right in this frame (although not turned at all in the surrounding frames), and the bottom splotch of white looks like it might have originally been Connolly's hand on the top edge of the car. Of course, in other frames, that bottom splotch of white is Connally's cushy round seat back, which in real life was just a thin jump seat cushion. The entire limousine looks like it's been washed over with watercolor paint.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

Mark Tyler believes Z228 to be a "synch point" with Bronson 3, as mentioned earlier in this thread. However, in Bronson 3, the Dark Complected Man's arm is right straight up next to his ear, as if giving a high "Black Power" fist. In Z228, DCM's "fingers" are extended, and his elbow is bent. There is no "synch point," because the extant Z-film is an alteration. The "white blog" is once again Connally's cushy seat back, which again, was not so cushy in real life, and Conally is facing forward (despite the single frame appearance of his being turned, as I note immediately above). Again, JFK's face is "blanked." His too-short right "arm"/hand hides the throat wound location. The still too-long left arm looks like curled paper rather than a 3D arm. Note the pinkish tint to the skin tone just to the right of the "shadow" line and the small circle of brownish tint right at the hairline above the right eye exactly in the area where I believe the first shot to have hit.

[Denise Hazelwood]

In earlier frames, the "Circle of Light" that I describe in my documentary helps to hide JFK's face, especially with one diamond shaped "reflection" (note that his face is not a reflective surface). You can't really see his throat, either, as another "reflection" effectively hides that. There is no tie, just the white "reflection." My computer IP has apparently begun to be "forbidden" from downloading Lightbox Z-film frames (not sure why), but you can Google Zapruder film Lightbox and see them for yourself. You'll notice the theme of "reflections," "blurs" etc. throughout hiding JFK's face, with only an occasional frame showing any actual features. Also pay attention to the throat/tie area, and you'll notice that you see very little of that, too. There was one frame I wanted to show with JFK's face hidden by the diamond shaped "reflection" where you could actually see a streak of reddish brown along the left side of his face, but I can't access that to download and post here at the moment. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

Responding to the gentleman who believes John Costello to have "proven" Z film authenticity:

Actually, while Costello believes "most" of the Z-film to be "authentic," he in fact proves that some of it is not. See his website "JFK assassination film hoax: A simple introduction" at http://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/ At the bottom of this "Introduction" page, he has links to "The fast-forward mistakes," "the blur mistake," "the sign mistake," "the lamppost mistake," "the wound mistake," and "the blood mistake." So while Costello might think that most of the film is "authentic," I would say that is debatable. The "mistakes" he lists may be the only parts he can "prove" are fake, but once any part of the film is shown to be fake, the entire film is suspect. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The "mistakes" he lists may be the only parts he can "prove" are fake, but once any part of the film is shown to be fake, the entire film is suspect. 

To say nothing of the fact that Costella apparently believed he and Jack White were being "tracked" by sensors or cameras hidden in Dealey Plaza by the evil conspirators, these alleged "mistakes," "lopsided triangles" and "blobs" are nothing more than conjecture until someone can actually explain how the film was altered to this degree using technology available at the time, much less explain away Roland Zavada's findings that the film in evidence is in fact the in-camera original.