How to debunk the George Hickey theory?

[John Butler]

On 11/30/2021 at 10:19 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

8.   Vickie Adams- 11-24-63- She said when the president’s vehicle entered the intersection of Elm and Houston she heard 3 shots.  She could not see the shooting since it happened while the presidential limousine was under trees.  And, that would be in front of the TSBD.

"Under trees" would be the Altgens 6 shot, and possibly the others, depending on the view from her perspective if the trees were blocking.

9.   Dorothy Garner- 3-20-64 FBI report- When the shots occurred the presidential vehicle was out of sight, obscured by trees. This would be in front of the TSBD.

 Not necessarily "in front of the TSBD." How much of her view was blocked by trees? Possibly a good deal of Elm Street.

The people on the 3rd and 4th floor had their view of the p. limo blocked by trees when they heard shooting.  This is limited to a small section of the TSBD width.  Those trees do not block a significant portion of Elm Street.  It is limited to mainly the SW corner of the TSBD.  In other words, a small section of Elm Street would be blocked by trees for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floor offices.

[John Butler]

On 11/30/2021 at 10:19 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

9.   Dorothy Garner- 3-20-64 FBI report- When the shots occurred the presidential vehicle was out of sight, obscured by trees. This would be in front of the TSBD.

 Not necessarily "in front of the TSBD." How much of her view was blocked by trees? Possibly a good deal of Elm Street.

10.Yola Hopson- 12-1-63- FBI report- She heard two or more sounds / firecrackers when the presidential limousine was obscured by trees.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

 See #8 & #9 above. Trees could have blocked most of Elm Street, depending on the witness's view.

Same goes for these comments.  Only a small section of Elm Street was blocked.  Yola Hopson and Ruth Nelson were one room over to the east from the four ladies, Elsie Dorman, etc.

[John Butler]

23 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The first TSBD shot did occur at the intersection, just after the limo finished its turn. This was sandwiched between a probable warning shot before the TSBD shot, and a definite warning shot after (the Algens 6 warning shot). The warning shots from SS hand guns at street level, though not from the same location (moving motorcade).

The Altgens 6 shot was not a warning shot.  It is the shot that took President Kennedy in the throat from the front.  Altgens 6 is a crop of a larger photo.  What was cropped out was the Stemmons sign.  I believe it should be visible behind the p. limo in Altgens 6 and not in front or just 20 feet past it as a lot of folks believe.  

The shadows of Mary and Jean are painted in.  Those are paint brush strokes.  Their shadows should not be there.  Most folks believe that the Altgens 6 photo was taken at Z 255 location.  I think earlier before passing the sign.  Mary and Jean become visible at location Z 287 which is 30 feet down the road.

[Jonathan Cohen]

43 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Altgens 6 shows a rifle (more likely a shotgun) sticking out of the open door and erased from the photo leaving some trace of its image. 

Altgens 5 has been altered.  That alteration occurs as the vehicle moves across the cross-walk lines going north on Houston.

Neither of these photos has been altered and you have failed time and again to provide ANY explanation for how they even could have been, given how quickly after the assassination they were transmitted over the Associated Press news wire.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jonathan Cohen

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 minutes ago, John Butler said:

 The shadows of Mary and Jean are painted in.  Those are paint brush strokes.  Their shadows should not be there.

John is now back in "Billy Lovelady face mask" territory with this one. Painted in shadows? Really? Painted by whom? When? How? Why?

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jonathan Cohen

[John Butler]

13 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Before going farther, I want to compliment John Butler on his compilation of 110 witness statements. A great many of the witnesses describe "the turn" onto Elm Street as the presidential limo's location for the first shot. Others do not, seeming to place its position in Altgens 6 as the "first" shot, although Kennedy is clearly already in distress by that point, in the "throat grab" position with Jackie's hands on his arm.

Thanks Denise,

You are the first person to take these statements seriously and discuss their worth.  Generally, we agree on some things.  And, not on others.  On the vague witness statements, I just gave enough for reader to understand what the witness said and if they wanted more information, they could go to the reference I provided.  This was because of the length of the piece.  First day witness statements were the best.  But, by that afternoon and evening statements were being coerced, and in many cases changed by the DPD and the FBI. 

 

[John Butler]

11 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

John is now back in "Billy Lovelady face mask" territory with this one. Painted in shadows? Really? Painted by whom? When? How? Why?

Those painted in shadows of Mary and Jean are backwards in size in relation to the Z film and are to relate Altgens 6 to a location past the Stemmons sign and connect to Mary and Jean 30 feet down the road.  Yes, we are back in "Billy Lovelady face mask territory".  Yes, we are still talking about Altgens 6 alterations.  Do you want to talk about the Johnson security vehicle distortion in relation to the rest of the photo?  How about Danny Arce on Houston St. with a radio when he should be elsewhere?

I will continue the discussion of Denise's comments tommorrow.

Edited December 2, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

13 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Neither of these photos has been altered and you have failed time and again to provide ANY explanation for they even could have been, given how quickly after the assassination they were transmitted over the Associated Press news wire.

Chris,

This is another example of JB and JC's bold assertions without anything to back them up other than the authority of their statements.

As far as an explanation, there are 5 years of comments on the various subjects you mention.  Simply, go back and read what I said before saying I have failed to provide any explanation about the various alterations in the Dealey Plaza media I have seen.

[Ron Bulman]

Watch Keith own the song he wrote.  A couple years after the JFKA, might it have influenced his thoughts?

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Ron Bulman

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Denise Hazelwood writes:

Quote

saying everything is "an error" on the part of the critics does not explain the anomalies.

Plenty of apparent anomalies have been explained over the years, by Thompson and others.

We know for a fact that anomalies are generated by the copying of films. That's the default explanation for the sort of trivial anomalies Denise has cited. If Denise wants to explain those anomalies as examples of fakery, it's up to her to demonstrate that her particular form of fakery could and would have produced the anomalies she mentioned:

Quote

Clint Hill disappearing for a single frame, the "jumping lamp post," the impossible limo flag, JFK's "extra long arm,"

What alteration process would have generated those specific anomalies?

Denise continues:

Quote

the film not matching witness accounts of JFK "bolting forward" (contrary to the film's "back, and to the left" head snap) ... Mary Moorman's account that the head shot was the NEXT shot AFTER she took her picture.

But the film does show this. After the 'back and to the left' movement, JFK does slump forward. James Altgens is another witness to the same thing; see pp.47-48 of Josiah Thompson's recent book, Last Second in Dallas. Incidentally, Thompson interprets this as evidence for a head shot from behind later than frame 313.

Quote

The Occam's Razor is that the film really IS a fake.

Occam's razor is the opposite of what Denise claims. The principle is that we should accept the simplest explanation, not the most complex explanation, that fits the evidence.

We know that eye-witnesses often make mistakes. We know that creating a copy of a physical image will generate visual artefacts in the copy, and consequently that the several-generations-old copies that Denise is working from must contain plenty of such artefacts. Those inevitable artefacts are the anomalies spotted by Denise and plenty of other over-imaginative people during the last couple of decades.

That's the simple explanation. The complex explanation is that the Zapruder film, and all the other images which agree with particular aspects of the film, was altered. Unless someone demonstrates that such alterations have happened, there's no good reason to believe that they did happen.

If Denise would like to have a go at proving that the Zapruder film (and any films and photographs that agree with it) was altered, please go ahead.

Quote

The film as found online is NOT the actual film that was in Zapruder's camera.

I think 'Duh!' is the appropriate reply to that pearl of wisdom.

Quote

As for what is in the Archives, I cannot say.

But you need to say. We know from Roland Zavada's report and the comments of Prof. Raymond Fielding that the Kodachrome film in the National Archives is not a copy, because it does not contain any of the defects that would have been generated by the copying process: increased contrast, increased grain, and distorted colours.

If that film is the actual film that was in Zapruder's camera, and not a copy, how were Denise's alterations made? What process was involved that could have altered the film without requiring a final copy to be made?

Quote

All of the films and photos are suspect, like the Towner film, the Croft photo, the Willis photo ... Other images WERE faked.

Oh dear. Grab your tin-foil hats, people! Seriously, is there a single photo or home movie that wasn't faked?

--

Further reading:

• Zavada's report: http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm
• Prof. Fielding: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf (7.8 MB) (see p.18 for Fielding's comments, but the rest is worth reading too)

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If that film is the actual film that was in Zapruder's camera, and not a copy, how were Denise's alterations made? What process was involved that could have altered the film without requiring a final copy to be made?

Are you saying you don't know how films or photos are altered to tell a particular story that is different from the original content?  That's what alterations are about.  As an example, Doorway Man in Altgens 6 is not Billy Lovelady, but an unknown who you do not want known for some reason.  Maybe that person looks too much like Lee Harvey Oswald so a face mask of Billy Lovelady is put there to cover that identity.  Notice the different skin tones on the face and head indicating a different light source for both.  The outline of the mask is noticeable indicating bad work.  

Perhaps, his presence there exposes another phony story. 

A standard technique in film alteration is to change the appearance of a person by substituting someone else's body as an example in the BYPs, or just the face is good enough in most circumstances.  A face mask is someone else's face which is literally cut from a different source with an exacto knife or scissors.  Then this mask is place over the over a person's face to establish the new identity.  A new film, or in this case a new photo is shot of the old, but changed photo. 

This image of Doorway man is so inaptly constructed that it is simply just bad alteration work.  I would say that this was because the work was rushed.  Sure, it is true the photo was sent to the AP, I believe if my memory is correct, early on.  But, that doesn't mean this extent Altgens 6 in its final form is the same as what was sent early on.  There was several hours between that time and its appearance on the 6:30 news with Walter Cronkite.  Plenty of time to notice Doorway man and decide to change his identity. 

The work is so bad that the left shoulder of Doorway Man is not there, and there is no way that looks natural.  From the photo it would seem that his elbow is growing out of his rib cage.  The person standing next to Doorway does not have a head.  It is covered by large shadows from much smaller arms.  Billy Lovelady later said he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt that day.  Why would he do that?  Can other photos of Billy in a long-sleeved shirt be trusted?    

Edited December 2, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

23 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

38.    Barbara Rowland- Sheriff’s Office 11 22 63- Barbara was with her husband, Arnold, on Houston Street.  She said “…in about 15 minutes the President passed where we were standing and turned left onto Elm Street and started toward the underpass when I heard a report and thought it was a firecracker…”

 

Vague. Shot just after the turn? Or when limo was. closer to the underpass?

"started toward the underpass" does not mean closer to the underpass.  When you turn onto Elm from Houston you start towards the underpass does not mean you are there or close to it.  

[John Butler]

On 11/30/2021 at 11:02 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

There are indications that Towner's film also got "the treatment., though a more crude version than the Z-film. Watch the head shapes. Note the missing frames. Probably Rochester, NY at Hawkeye Works.

In my opinion the Towner film is a crude animation with a surreal feeling.  The p limo just floats through the landscape of the intersection and in front of the TSBD.

[John Butler]

On 12/1/2021 at 9:51 AM, Denise Hazelwood said:

I would also like to point out Butler's acknowledgement that the Robert Croft photo may not be entirely authentic. It is not. Note Roy Kellerman's extraordinarily skinny neck as an example. Also the same type of JFK "grimace" Robert Harris describes in the Jim Towner photo.

I didn't base my accusation that the Croft film is altered on any particular thing in the photo.  What I based it on is that if the witness descriptions were correct about the shooting in the intersection, and since there were so many, I felt that to be true, then the photo was altered.

[John Butler]

On 11/30/2021 at 11:02 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

t's really hard to define what "immediately" means in her account. Also bear in mind the tendency to under-report the number of shots. More interesting is her description of "sparks" which I believe describes the skull fragment that landed near Charles Brehm.

How could she see that from Houston Street?  Skull fragments?  "immediately" means exactly what she said to describe what happened. 

immediately

 

ĭ-mē′dē-ĭt-lē

adverb

1. Without delay.
2. Without an intermediary; directly.
3. In an immediate manner; without intervention of any other person or thing; proximately; directly; -- opposed to mediately.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

 

The American educational system was much better in that day.  Almost everyone would have known what the word "immediately" means.