Jump to content
The Education Forum

How to debunk the George Hickey theory?


Recommended Posts

Quote

 

If the alleged AR-15 shot was the final head shot, then it does not explain the doctors and nurses at Parkland who report that there was a large exit wound in the right rear of Kennedy's skull. An exit wound in the rear of the head would not have occurred if the shot had also been fired from behind. A shot from Hickey would also not explain JFK's head and body being driven backward and to the left, toward Hickey and not away from him.

And then there's Jackie's behavior to consider. Either she was going back to 1. retrieve a piece of JFK's skull which had been driven backwards from JFK's head, or 2. she was trying to escape from a shooter. Either one is inconsistent with a headshot shooter behind JFK.

 

The key is that the AR-15 shot was "the final head shot." The first head shot came from the front (the forehead entry), and that explains the back of the head blow-out. The back of the head was now the weakest point for release of the energy of the later high-speed AR-15 head shot, which then enlarged the back of the head blow-out (by ejecting the Harper Fragment), since the back of the head was now the weakest point of the skull for that energy to dissipate.

You may be interested in my observations of the HSCA lateral X-ray, whose caption describes an "occipital defect"--meaning, a hole at the back of the head. This X-ray was flipped and composited (along with the living X-ray) to create the "computer enhanced" lateral X-ray image you can readily find online, and which intimates a front of the head blow-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, that there was no head shot at 313. There was a shot there, but not a head shot. You can't trust the Z-film as evidence of anything. Watch Part 4. Then pay attention to Mary Moorman's statements. She didn't know what was going on at the time she took her picture, although she asserts that it was simultaneous with a shot. Then, the next shot after she took her picture (the first shot of the double-bang) was when she saw Kennedy's "hair jump." Pay attention to Malcolm Summers, who says that Kennedy was hit "right about where (he) was at." ( I believe Altgens said about "15 feet" distance from his camera though that's not in my documentary.) If you ignore the Z-film and pay attention to the witnesses, you get a different story of what happened. But be aware that witnesses, who were not expecting an assassination, were likely to under-report the number of shots. In Moorman's case, she thought her picture was simultaneous with the first shot and only assumed that it got Kennedy because he was "slumped" in her picture. She didn't realize he had already been hit at some point before the Altgens 6 pict was taken, thought her picture was with the "first" shot--or at least, the first one she was "sure" of. Much of this is discussed in Part 7: "The Four Shots." (Spoiler: the shot that was simultaneous with the Moorman pict is the one that got Connally.)

 

The Zapruder film is a fake. The autopsy picts and X-rays  were also faked. Once you realize that, you can largely ignore them. (Although pay attention to the lateral X-ray, with its "occipital defect" caption, and which was flipped and used to create the composited "computer enhanced" image.) You have to accept that there are authenticity issues related to both the Z film and the readily found autopsy images, like the pix and the "computer enhanced" (i.e., composited) images showing a "front" of the head blow-out. 

 

 

That's the problem with a lot of researchers. Many do realize that there is an authenticity problem with the Z film (frames removed to hide the limo stop), but they don't realize that the whole thing, including the early frames, is worthless as evidence. Kennedy wasn't waving before he went behind the sign (although some witnesses misinterpreted his movement into decorticate posture as a "wave"). Zapruder filmed the limo turning onto Elm Street. Zapruder was confused by the early frames of the extant film when he was shown them during his WC testimony. You have to ignore the Z film, which is very difficult to get people to do. Look at the witness statements, look at what those who saw the "other" Zapruder film describe. Bear in mind that witnesses were likely to "miss" shots, especially early shots before they realized an assassination was taking place. 


Watch the entire documentary. Part 1 gives some background, notes why at least half of the SS agents were a little sluggish in their response to the (especially first) shots, notes the willingness to "set up" (words of one SS agent) Bolden (logical speculation was in order to shut him up), notes that the AR-15 was removed from the SS arsenal immediately after the assassination, and a few other key details. Part 2 demonstrates why the official stories don't hang together properly. Part 3 explains Donahue's original theory and its mistakes. Part 4 deals with the Z-film. Part 5 with the autopsy images. Part 6 with the first shot (which Moorman and other witnesses missed, but which witnesses closer to the intersection didn't--I give you some witnesses tot his shot, including one who actually saw it strike Kennedy in the "forehead" along with contemporaneous evidence for two head shots (like Dan Rather indicating the intersection as "right there" where Kennedy was assassinated and  Walter Cronkite saying Kennedy "was struck once or twice in the head"). Part 7 deals with why witnesses were likely to under-report the number of shots (especially the early shots). Part 8  talks about the Altgens 6 shot (which wasn't an "assassination" shot and didn't hit anybody except the Stemmons sign and the windshield). Part 9 gives the background on the acoustics and explains why the dictabelt shouldn't be "discounted" as evidence. Part 10 adds a bit more evidence and explains why anybody who doesn't believe the Oswald-as-Lone-Shooter scenario gets labeled as a "Conspiracy Theorist" (aka "kook" or "nutcase") and how the assassination cover-up contributed to today's deep political rifts. If you watch the whole thing, I think many of your questions will be answered.

 

-Denise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2021 at 7:23 PM, Chris Bristow said:

I think the weakest part of the theory is that it requires the 'official' head wound location. The Parkland staff's testimony is highly consistent and there is a great deal of corroboration by autopsy personnel. The weight of the evidence in their testimony and reports from that day are far greater than the very weak counter arguments that support the WC or Hickey injury location.
 It does seem likely that he discharged the AR as many people like Sen Yarborough distinctly smelled gunpowder.

I think Chris says it all in relation to the claim Hickey was the head wound shooter.  Kennedy was shot in the head from the front and not the rear where Hickey was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2021 at 8:59 AM, Denise Hazelwood said:

That's the problem with a lot of researchers. Many do realize that there is an authenticity problem with the Z film (frames removed to hide the limo stop), but they don't realize that the whole thing, including the early frames, is worthless as evidence.

There's a number of reasons for this.  One of which is there are a number of witnesses, over 100, who saw something different from what Abe Zapruder's eyes, the camera, saw.

In fact, there is good evidence to say the camera film is different from what Abe Zapruder saw.  To repeat what was said above, "but they don't realize that the whole thing, including the early frames, is worthless as evidence.

And, without the Zapruder film and others that match it what do you have for evidence for the Official Story?  Early on there are 3 pieces of evidence about the assassination for the public consumption to convince everyone that Oswald was the killer..  The Zapruder film, Altgens 6, and Mary Moorman's Polaroid.  All are altered.  And, their testimony suspect.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denise Hazelwood wrote:

Quote

The Z313 head shot is the product of film alteration.

Jonathan Cohen asked:

Quote

Are you saying there was no head shot at 313? What specific film alteration do you allege took place?

Denise replied:

Quote

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, that there was no head shot at 313. There was a shot there, but not a head shot. You can't trust the Z-film as evidence of anything. ...

The Zapruder film is a fake. The autopsy picts and X-rays  were also faked. Once you realize that, you can largely ignore them. ...

You have to accept that there are authenticity issues related to both the Z film and the readily found autopsy images ... there is an authenticity problem with the Z film (frames removed to hide the limo stop) ... the whole thing, including the early frames, is worthless as evidence. ... You have to ignore the Z film ... 

Denise hasn't answered the second part of Jonathan's question. What specific alterations to the film is she proposing?

If frame 313 of the Zapruder film, which clearly indicates a shot to the head, is a fake, how was that bit of fakery done? Was the image of JFK's head wound painted in? Was it a cut-and-paste job, using a frame taken from some other part of the car's journey along Elm Street? Or was it created entirely from scratch?

What about frames 314 onward, which show debris flying through the air and JFK famously falling back and to the left? Were those frames faked too? If so, how was it done? Painted-in, cut-and-paste, or created from scratch?

As for the missing car stop, how was that bit of fakery done? Were a number of frames snipped out and the two ends joined together? If so, how is that consistent with the film's depiction of the car moving smoothly down Elm Street? If, on the other hand, frames were not snipped out, exactly how was the car stop removed?

Did the head-shot and car-stop fakery involve the copying of a revised set of frames onto a new reel of Kodachrome film? If so, how would Denise account for the condition of the Zapruder film that is in the National Archives? The film apparently contains none of the defects that would inevitably be generated by copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film, as Roland Zavada explained in his report for the ARRB. You'll find a link to Zavada's report and other useful sources here:

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

If the fakery did not involve copying a revised set of frames onto a new reel of Kodachrome film, and the film in the National Archives is indeed the one that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination, how would Denise reconcile the condition of the film with the alterations she claims were made to it?

If the head shot at frame 313 is a fake and a car stop has been removed from the Zapruder film, how would Denise account for the other home movies and photographs which are consistent with what we see in the relevant section of the Zapruder film?

Presumably, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, the Moorman photograph, and the Altgens 7 photograph were also faked in some way. How was it done, in each case? I'd be especially interested to learn how the Moorman photo was faked in the short period of time before numerous copies were distributed to journalists on the afternoon of the assassination.

If the head shot did not take place when the various home movies and still photographs indicate that it took place, could Denise tell us exactly when it did take place? These and several other home movies and photos show the car at various points on its journey along Elm Street. Are there any images of the car at the instant when Denise thinks the head shot actually occurred? If, as is likely, such images exist, why do they not show it? Were they faked too? If so, in each case, how was it done?

Denise also writes:

Quote

If you ignore the Z-film and pay attention to the witnesses, you get a different story of what happened.

That's a big 'if'! It should read:

Quote

If you ignore the Z-film, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, the Moorman photograph, and the Altgens 7 photograph, and pay attention to a small proportion of the witnesses, you get a different story of what happened.

Why should we believe those witnesses? We should expect people to make the occasional mistake when they recall the fine details of a brief, unexpected and traumatic event.

In the case of the supposed car stop, we have on the one hand a small number of witnesses who claimed consistently that the car pulled over to the left and stopped momentarily (see http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street ). We have on the other hand a much larger number of witnesses who would have seen the car stop if it had happened, and would surely have reported it but did not do so. And of course we also have four home movies and two still photographs that agree, unambiguously, that the car did not pull over to the left and stop at the time of the head shot. 

Until Denise or anyone else can demonstrate that these home movies and photographs were faked, there is no good reason to prefer the accounts of a small number of fallible human witnesses.

Incidentally, the case for the supposed car stop was dismantled on this forum a few months ago:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27114-what-prevented-dulles-angleton-from-destroying-the-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=441219

Quote

Look at the witness statements, look at what those who saw the "other" Zapruder film describe.

Oh dear. The "other" Zapruder film! It's the JFK assassination's equivalent of alien abduction stories. Is Denise seriously claiming that a handful of people, in different parts of the world, were neither lying nor honestly mistaken when they claimed that such a valuable, top-secret film was for some reason made available for them to watch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Until Denise or anyone else can demonstrate that these home movies and photographs were faked, there is no good reason to prefer the accounts of a small number of fallible human witnesses.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26525-unveiling-the-limo-stop/?do=findComment&comment=448501

Asked, and answered.

Waiting for your explanation.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Why should we believe those witnesses? We should expect people to make the occasional mistake when they recall the fine details of a brief, unexpected and traumatic event.

Why?  Numbers.  If a few people diverge from what others are saying then one may question what they say.  Perhaps discount it, or try to find other info to authenticate it.  Take for instance the 3 Ladies of the Court House.  They said they heard shooting on Main Street when the p. limo was on Main Street.  There were several others around the intersection of Main and Houston who said they heard shooting when the p. limo was on Main Street or in the intersection.  These witnesses are around a dozen or so. 

But, if over 100 witnesses are saying something different from the Official Story then one must sit up and pay attention.  Something is wrong with the Official Story if over 100 witnesses, somewhere around 114, testified to something different than the head shot at Z313 and what is seen in other films related to the shooting in front of the Grassy Knoll.  This is roughly 20% of the witnesses who made statements.  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Davidson writes:

Quote

Waiting for your explanation.

No, if someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them to justify their claim. It isn't up to anyone else to refute the claim.

As I mentioned in the comment immediately above the one Chris linked to, we've had two decades' worth of anomalies being identified that have turned out to be worthless. The burden of proof has never been met, and after 20 years of detailed scrutiny and failed attempts, it isn't likely to be, either.

I pointed out elsewhere that Chris's fondness for numbers has led him to see significance in coincidences:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2465p25-from-the-files-of-the-ayn-rand-detective-agency-salt-lake-city-buda-bangkok-the-case-of-the-patsy-who-was-one-sandwich-short-of-a-picnic#37765

John Butler writes:

Quote

over 100 witnesses, somewhere around 114, testified to something different than the head shot at Z313 and what is seen in other films related to the shooting in front of the Grassy Knoll.

So more than 100 witnesses testified to the head shot taking place somewhere other than where the limo was at frame 313?

Perhaps John could open a new thread and give us chapter and verse on all these witnesses, with details of exactly where they said the head shot actually took place. Let's see what the evidence is, and whether the witnesses really said what John thinks they said.

If, as I suspect, there are only a handful of anomalous witnesses rather than over a hundred, why should we believe them over several home movies and photographs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

So more than 100 witnesses testified to the head shot taking place somewhere other than where the limo was at frame 313?

I didn't say that.  What I said was over 100 witnesses testified to something different than what happened at Z 313.  I didn't speak about the headshot taking place somewhere else (But, I guess you could take it that way).  Basically, what the witnesses were saying was that the assassination didn't happen in front of the Grassy Knoll but in front of the TSBD (most of the witnesses referred to said this, but there were exceptions pointing to Main Street and the intersection of Houston and Main). 

I posted this information on the forum some time ago and can be seen here:

At the time there was 105 witnesses plus several that could be taken that way.  I have added a few since.    

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George Govus said:

Sure, John, please convert your list to pdf. I can open a pdf. Thanks.

George,

The site is telling me the PDF format for this file is too large to post.  Sorry.  I can still send it to you through email.  Just send your email address to jbutlers@bardstowncable.net.  Or, you can go to this post on the forum Anomalous witness statements in Dealey Plaza and find a pdf copy. 

This is an earlier version with 105 witnesses and possibly a couple of errors.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list of witnesses John Butler gave us:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26714-anomalous-witness-statements-in-dealey-plaza/

doesn't provide any solid evidence to contradict the various home movies which show a head shot at frame 313 of the Zapruder film.

The first named witness, Alan Smith, was almost certainly mistaken when he claimed to have been standing on Main Street. This article makes a good case that Smith, who was 14 at the time of the assassination, was in fact one of two boys standing on Elm Street, near the so-called Umbrella Man:

Chris Scally, ‘Alan Smith and Friends’, Dealey Plaza Echo, vol.17 no.3 (Winter 2012), pp.38–46: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146599#relPageId=39

All of John's other witness statements are either vague or are perfectly consistent with what the photographic record shows: the shooting happened while the car was on Elm Street.

None of those witnesses support Denise Hazelwood's claim that "there was no head shot at 313". That's hardly surprising, since for Denise's claim to be true several home movies would have had to be altered, a laborious and time-consuming procedure which would need to be proved in order to be believed.

Before Denise gets around to proving that the home movies were altered, perhaps she could let us know of any witnesses who specifically contradict what we see in the home movies, so that we can evaluate their statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The list of witnesses John Butler gave us:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26714-anomalous-witness-statements-in-dealey-plaza/

doesn't provide any solid evidence to contradict the various home movies which show a head shot at frame 313 of the Zapruder film.

Witness statements are not solid evidence?  Tell that to all the folks who went to jail based on witness statements.

 

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

All of John's other witness statements are either vague or are perfectly consistent with what the photographic record shows: the shooting happened while the car was on Elm Street.

This is a nice piece of disinformation from Jeremy.  The witness statements I selected to go into this Dealey Plaza witness review contain the person's name, where the information came from, and a brief statement of what they said.  There is enough info provided and a place where you can see where it came from in case you decide to read the statement.  When I read through all of the witness statements in Dealey Plaza I was looking for information to answer this question that was not asked by anyone.  Where was the p. limo at when you heard shots?  That question was not asked. 

Here is an example from the article.  In this particular copy there are 110 plus witnesses and 8 maybes:

1. Witness Statements: 1. Harold Norman- 11-26-63 FBI statement Norman said he heard a shot as the vehicle turned onto Elm St.

2. Bonnie Ray Williams- Sheriff’s Office on 11-22-63- first said he heard shot when the presidential limo turned onto Houston. Later, he changed that to a turn onto Elm St. and then later changed that.

3. James “Junior” Jarman- Warren Hearing on March 24, 1964- At first, Jarman said much the same as Williams and Norman. He later changed his testimony at the WC to hearing shots from low and to the left. That is shooting from Houston Street. This could be from the Dal-Tex.

4. Mary Hollies- 2-18-64 statement to Detective Potts said she heard 3 shots as the motorcade turned into the intersection. She noticed smoke on a little hill over to the west. Mary Hollies and Alice Foster are placed with 5th floor witnesses due to Mary’s 6th Floor Museum interview in January, 2011. This contradicts her earlier statements.

5. Betty Alice Foster-3-19-64 FBI statement- She heard something like fireworks after the President’s car turned down Elm St.

These witnesses are the first 5 in a long list of witnesses.  This is what the witness said which generally can be found for most of the witnesses in FBI 302s.  They are not vague or consistent with photographic witnesses.  That's wishful thinking on the part of JB. 

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The first named witness, Alan Smith, was almost certainly mistaken when he claimed to have been standing on Main Street. This article makes a good case that Smith, who was 14 at the time of the assassination, was in fact one of two boys standing on Elm Street, near the so-called Umbrella Man:

Here is what I said in another article about Alan Smith to refute that type of thinking:

Where was Allen Smith on November 22, 1963 at or near Dealey Plaza?

Pat Speer and Chris Scully have identified and placed Allen Smith, despite his testimony saying something different, in an area I call Mannikin Row.  This is the 19 people standing between the Stemmons sign and the lamppost near the SW corner of the TSBD.

From Pat Speer’s Chapter 7b: More Pieces in the Plaza he said:

 

however, researcher Chris Scully looked into Smith and was able to confirm he attended the school he claimed to have attended, and was only 14 at the time of the shooting. Scally also made a tentative ID of Smith as one of the two boys standing under the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Betzner and Willis photos. (Scally's article on Smith can be found in the Winter 2012 Dealey Plaza Echo.) In any event, Scally's article convinced me that Smith's claim of being on Main Street was probably an honest mistake, and that he may very well have been on Elm.”

 

Pat Speer and Chris Scully agree on the notion that Allen Smith was on Elm Street and not on Main Street as he said.  They claim he was in a place on Elm Street between the lamppost near the SW corner of the TSBD and the Stemmons sign.  I will repeat what Speer said as proof “Scally also made a tentative ID of Smith as one of the two boys standing under the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Betzner and Willis photos.”

 

The key to this statement by Pat Speer is the word “tentative”. 

 

Actually, there are 2 more photos that bear on the question.  These are Zapruder frame 140 and a Bronson frame. Z 140 shows there are differences in Betzner 3, and Willis 5.  These photos show the people and area I call Mannikin Row.  I think that Scully and Speer didn’t realize this or simply overlooked Z 140 and Bronson. 

 

 

 alan-smith-placement-on-elm-wrong.jpg

You may need to enlarge these photos to see more clearly.  First off, notice the two figures in Z 140 standing to the east of the dark-haired woman in dark blue.  You will see the alleged Allen Smith standing next to the man in a hat and suit.  They are standing east of the woman.  First the man in the suit and hat then the alleged Allen.   

That is not what we see in Betzner 3.  The alleged Allen, pointed to by an arrow, is standing to the west of the dark-haired woman in blue.  This is a direct conflict between Z 140 and Betzner 3.  In Willis 5 we see the same thing as is seen in Z 140.  In both scenes the alleged Allen with the man in the hat and suit are standing to the east of the woman. 

 

There are further conflicts with the Bronson frame crop shown below:

 

bronson-on-elm-street-scene.jpg

 

In Z 140 and Betzner we see the alleged Allen to the east of the woman in blue.  In the Bronson frame the woman in dark blue is not near the pair at all.  The alleged Allen is west of the man in the hat and suit.  In Z 140 and Betzner 3 the alleged Allen is east of the man in the hat and suit.  In Bronson the alleged Allen is west of the man in the suit. 

 

There is only one figure, that could possibly be a teenager in these photos.  That figure is pointed to with a red arrow.  That figure looks more like an adult than a teenager.  He is standing near an obvious adult in a hat and business suit. This does not constitute two teenagers.  Or more correctly, we do not see “friends”.  Allen said he was with friends meaning more than one person.  Again, quoting from the Pat Speer article:

 

I was standing on the curb watching the parade along Main street. We were permitted to skip school, if we had a note from our parents, to watch it." "The crowds were cheering, but all at once they changed to screaming. The car was about 10 feet from me when a bullet hit the President in his forehead. The bullets came from a window right over my head in the building in front of which my friends and I were standing."
 

In this quote Smith says “friends”.  That means more than one person. In the montage of photos above we see only one person that could possibly be a teenager.  There are no other younger males there.

Bronson also makes clear that there are no buildings behind the area known as Mannikin Row on Elm Street.  There is what is commonly called the Arcade or Pergola and not a building with windows on a second or higher floor as indicated by Allen Smith’s testimony.   

Another thing different in the Bronson frame is that the 19 people group in Z 140 is not present in this frame.  What we see in Bronson is a widely separated group extending back to the lamppost that is in different positions and do not number 19 people.  The 3 photos above Z 140, Betzner, and Willis all show the group basically shoulder to shoulder.   

Another conflict is Willis has the Umbrella man west of the Stemmons sign and Bronson has him east of the sign.  There is no discussion of a different camera angle from Zapruder can explain this enigma.  My answer is different photo teams working on the films and photos of Dealey Plaza without a detailed script on how things should be seen. 

 

 

 

To sum up:

1.     Allen Smith said he was on Main Street when the president came by.  There is no visual proof that Allen Smith was on Elm Street in the area near the Stemmons sign.  The four photos in question show a man in a dark or black hat and business suit next to another adult or, someone who could be claimed to be a 14 year old teenager.  But, there is no proof that is true.

2.     There are conflicts on where the alleged Allen and his friend are positioned in the photos and frames.

3.     The 4 photos do not show a group of Allen Smith and his “friends”.  Friends being more then one friend and Allen.

4.     There is no building on Elm Street near the Stemmons sign that has windows two stories or more above.  There simply is no building on Elm Street except the monument or Pergola structures.

5.     The assumption that a 14-year-old boy would be confused as to where he was at during the assassination is just that, an assumption.

6.     Allen Smith is clear enough, and not confused, to state where he was, what he saw, and what he felt in great detail in the Chicago Tribune article. 

7.     “(11-22-63 datelined article found in the 11-23-63 Chicago Tribune) "A wide-eyed 14-year-old boy, who was standing 10 feet away and looking directly at President Kennedy at the time of the assassination, told THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE of his astonishment at watching the historic event unfold. "It made me weak!  I felt like sitting down!  It was horrible!" Alan Smith, a Boy Scout and a 9th grade pupil at Stockard Junior High School, related. "I was standing on the curb watching the parade along Main street. We were permitted to skip school, if we had a note from our parents, to watch it." "The crowds were cheering, but all at once they changed to screaming. The car was about 10 feet from me when a bullet hit the President in his forehead. The bullets came from a window right over my head in the building in front of which my friends and I were standing." "Mr. Kennedy had a big wide smile. But when he was hit, his face turned blank. There was no smile, no frown - nothing.  He fell down over Jackie's knees and didn't say anything. She stood up screaming 'God, oh God, no.' There was blood all over her and everything. She tried to raise him up but he fell back over her." "It sounded like the governor (John B. Connally) moaned when he was hit, I couldn't be sure." "The car went about five feet and stopped. Two policemen on foot rushed up. Then motorcycle policemen who had been leading the parade came back." "In a few minutes there were hundreds of policemen around the Dallas School Depository building, where they said the shots came from. They stuck ladders up to the building. They surrounded the whole place and moved the crowds away, so I had to leave." "Everything seemed terrible all over Dallas. Crowds of people were running all thru the city. I never saw anything like this before.”

8.     Allen Smith also says that Governor Connally was also shot on Main Street.

If you don't believe some of the claims above by Alan Smith you surely won't believe that last statement from Alan Smith.

Here is another comment concerning Alan Smith:

Alan Smith comment for Ken Rheberg

Thanks Ken,

Speer and Scally denigrate Alan Smith as “mysterious”, “he claimed”, “was not able to confirm”, “whether he attended the school he claimed to have attended”, “was only 14 at the time”, “made a tentative ID”, “honest mistake”, “how man many 14 year-olds know from the suburbs know”, “a wide-eyed 14 year old”, etc.  They turned a 14 year old student into a bogey man.

I have spent nearly 3 decades around 14 years-old kids.  You can’t just say they are goofy because they are age 14 as Speer and Scally do.  Kids are always surprising and many are more mature and intelligent than most think.  Speer and Scally do a continuous ad hominem attack on Alan Smith to destroy his testimony.  They had an agenda.

Whether a school kept a copy of a yearbook or not doesn’t mean someone did not go to school there.  Who is Bob Goodman and what is his relevance?  Why would he be believed over Smith.   Smith didn’t say the building was behind him he said the shots came from overhead directly above him.  I don’t think you really believe Alan Smith or give credit what he said.

I have more reason now to believe what he said then before. 

I have been is Dealey Plaza before when I first went to Texas in 1969.  The last trip was in 2015.

Thanks anyway.  I have enjoyed the conversation.

    

   

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...