How to debunk the George Hickey theory?

[Denise Hazelwood]

Rather than continue with the rest of Butler's witnesses (more of the same, lots of references to "the turn"--see my Part 6: "The Kill Shot" and references to another shot in front of the TSBD (see my Part 8: "The Five Shots"), I will just note some of his comments at the end of the document--comments I largely agree with. Again, my comments in Italics.

 

On November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza there were people who did not see what the majority of people saw that day or what they are purported to have said.  They saw something different that if true would negate what the majority saw and reverse not only the official story, the Warren Commission conclusions, the Zapruder Film, but most conspiracy theories based on shooting down by the Grassy Knoll. This is unacceptable to nearly all researchers.

 

Given the anomalies of the Z-film indicating fabrication, the witness accounts become that much more important. Note the theme of "the turn" that runs through so many of these accounts. This is my "Kill Shot" (See Part 6 of my documentary A Benign Conspiracy)  I'm not sure what you call "the majority" of witnesses. As I've noted in this topic and in my documentary, "Most witnesses reported 3 shots, but they didn't report the same 3 shots." The news media was reporting "three" shots immediately after the 3 empty hulls were found in the TSBD, which could very well have influenced testimony. Note Mary Moorman's early reporting on "3 or 4" shots that she was "sure of" (leaving open the possibility of more than 3 or 4 that she was less sure of). She thought her picture was simultaneous with the "first" shot, and heard two more shots after she took her picture. It seems to be the earlier shots, especially the "turn" shot that gets left out of accounts as what witnesses may not have been "sure" of.  The double-bang was susceptible to "echo" interpretation (note the "3 evenly spaced shots" witnesses vs. the "double-bang" witnesses, which are not really discussed in Butler's collection). I resolve this via inattention blindness and "echo" misinterpretation, along with the noise of the motorcade, the misperception of "fireworks" or "backfire" and so on. There are plenty of reasons for witnesses to under-report the number of shots, not so many for them to over-report the number of shots. But there are too many "turn" witnesses to ignore. Alan Smith tells us where this shot entered. Ruby Henderson & others give us some idea of its effects. 

 

This minority view says that the major icons of the assassination such as the Abraham Zapruder film, James “Ike” Altgens photos 5, 6 and 7, Mary Moorman’s Polaroid are all false and tainted by photo editing. Other photos and films that support these major icons such as the Orville Nix film and the Marie Muchmore film must also be false and tampered with if they show similar things.  

Almost all of the visual record in Dealey Plaza was seized and changed to reflect the views of the assassination cover-up.  There is a great deal of this record that has never seen daylight.  It was seized and destroyed by the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and the Dallas authorities. 

 

 

This "minority view" of alteration of the Z-film, Nix film, etc. is correct. The film and photographic record was seized, certainly, many images altered, certainly, but I hold out a (very slim) hope that the original unaltered images might be buried in the Archives somewhere. Is this what Biden is holding back? 

 

There are over 100+ witnesses listed here many of which say that when the presidential party entered the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets they came under fire from assassins.  The shooting continued in front of the TSBD.  It is as if the missing frames of the Zapruder film, the Zapruder Gap, were deleted and moved to the area of the Grassy Knoll.   And, that repositioned imagery was re-tasked to show the assassination occurring in front of the Grassy Knoll instead of the TSBD.

 

 

Yes, the "intersection" is the location of the "kill" shot. "Continuing in front of the TSBD" is the Altgens 6 shot. However, the shooting also continued past Mary Moorman's position, closer to where Malcolm Couch was standing (Couch: "right about where I was at;" Burnham: "at about the bottom of the stairs") 

 

 

The scope of this work has been widened to include those witnesses who said something happened on Main Street and on Houston Street.  They located the presidential vehicle there when they heard shooting. 

 

Here's where I will disagree with you somewhat. While I do believe there was a Secret Service warning shot fired by one of Johnson's follow-up car agents on Houston Street Upon seeing the assassin's gun in the window (note Warren Taylor's opening door in the Muchmore film), there were no shots fired from Main Street. The fact that some witnesses may have been located on Main Street does not place the Presidential limo on Main Street.

 

How could all those films and photos be tampered with?  How could the majority of witnesses see something one thing and then these witnesses something different?  How could the FBI and other authorities coerce and threaten witnesses to say what they wanted in new statements?  Why would the FBI change witness statements?  How could the FBI and Dallas authorities, in good consciousness as law enforcement officials, change witness statements to frame an individual of a murder charge?

 

 

We have Doug Horne's discovery of 2 NPIC events and the involvement of the CIA's "Hawkeye Works" laboratory  I resolve the different accounting of shots through inattention blindness and misperception of separate and distinct shots as echoes. 

 

 

But, in a real sense, by reasonable doubt, this is what these 115 minority witnesses are saying.  I believe there is enough evidence here to suggest reasonable doubt and to rethink the way the Kennedy assassination occurred on 11-22-1963.

 

Which is exactly what I've done.

 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

Quote

“They were gunning the motorcycles, there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying “No No No,” with his fist beating---Then Jack turned and turned---

And many witnesses may have misinterpreted (especially the first/early shots) as "backfire," which, along with "fireworks" was a fairly common description of the first shot/s.
 

Quote

 

The "blue-grey building" is just east of the policeman in the street.  

 

 

Could there be another "blue-grey building" that she saw from Houston Street (i.e., past Elm Street--note all the "turn" witnesses, but also note her account that she was "looking to the left" at the beginning of the assassination)? Could she have misinterpreted the Triple Underpass as a "blue-gray building"? Could there have been a blue-gray building on the other side of the Underpass? Could her memory have been jumbled, remembering a "blue-gray building" shortly before the assassination, but mixing things up in her reconstructed memory later? I don't find your "Main Street" witnesses to actually be corroborating. They may have been located on Main Street, but your accounts don't really put the Preseidential limo on Main Street for a shot there. Some of the motorcade may have been there for one or more shots (for example the Houston Street SS warning shot), but not the Presidential limo being on Main Street.

 

I'll check out the link and see what her exact words were.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

Quote

All I remember was a blue grey building up ahead; then turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out….”

 

While a Google search of "Jackie Kennedy 'I could see a piece of his skull coming off' yields a number of results (this was in the "description of the wounds redacted" Warren Commission testimony, the Google search of "jackie kennedy 'all i remember was a blue grey building up ahead' " does not yield the "Theodore White" article from which it was purportedly taken. Mostly that search yields your postings and an out of context quote in David Von Pein archives. I'd like to see the original Theodore White article where she says this, how he got the scoop of an interview with Jackie (to my knowledge, William Manchester is the only interview she granted), the context in which she says this (the video you link is NOT the correct context. That video puts it in the middle of her WC "redacted" testimony uncovered from a dictation typewriter tape). 

I need more evidence that she actually said this, and the actual context in which she said it (e.g., could be the last thing she remembered before the assassination shots)

Can you link the original Theodore White article? 

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler asks:

Quote

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.

No, the question I asked was about the actual physical process that would have been used to make the sort of alterations Denise seems to be proposing.

According to the experts I cited in my last comment, the Zapruder film that is in the National Archives is not a copy; it is the original Kodachrome film that was in Zapruder's camera. I was asking Denise to explain how her alleged alterations were performed, given that the film is not a copy.

All the methods that other people have proposed, as far as I can tell, require that alterations were made to the original film and then a final copy was made onto a new reel of Kodachrome film, which then found its way into the National Archives. But, since this cannot have happened, how were the alterations made, in Denise's opinion? John should feel free to offer a detailed technical explanation too, if he can think of one.

If no plausible method exists by which such alterations could be made, there's no reason to suppose that the alterations happened. The odd-looking anomalies which Denise thinks are evidence of alteration must instead be one of two things:

• figments of her imagination, or
• common or garden artefacts that were generated when later copies were made.

Given that this thread is supposed to be about the 'Secret Service agent shot JFK' theory, would Denise's version stand up even if all those films and photos weren't faked (which they weren't)?

Or would her version of the fantasy-world 'everything is a fake' theory stand up even if the agent didn't in fact shoot JFK (which he didn't)?

Edited December 3, 2021 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Denise Hazelwood writes:

Quote

The film and photographic record was seized, certainly, many images altered, certainly,

Then demonstrate it. You could start by explaining these two examples:

• The Altgens photos were processed and transmitted all over the world only half an hour after the assassination.
• The Moorman photograph was broadcast on TV less than three hours after the assassination, and copies were distributed to journalists that afternoon and printed in the following day's newspapers.

We know that almost all of the photographers in Dealey Plaza were not accosted and their films were not seized. There's a list of some of them here:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24498-david-lifton-spots-a-piece-of-scalp-in-the-moorman-photo/?do=findComment&comment=442261

Several photos and films taken that day only came to light months, years, and even decades after the event. There may well be other photos, still undiscovered. How could the Bad Guys have prevented images coming to light in the future that would expose their fraudulent manipulation? They couldn't, could they?

How was all the seizing and faking done, exactly? Did the Bad Guys wave a magic wand, or what?

Quote

but I hold out a (very slim) hope that the original unaltered images might be buried in the Archives somewhere.

Very slim indeed! So there's a special, top-secret area in the archives marked 'JFK Assassination Photos and Films, Unaltered, Not for Public Consumption, Never to be Released', is there? Come on!

Quote

Is this what Biden is holding back?

You can't be serious! You really think that might be the reason for withholding the records?

I realise that Denise and John are probably just having a laugh at our expense, but this sort of magic-based 'everything is a fake' nonsense is liable to give genuine critics of the lone-nut account a bad name.

[Denise Hazelwood]

The Theodore White interview of November 29 1963 can be found at https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/THWPP/059/THWPP-059-011 

Haven't yet found a reference to a blue-gray building, but I admit to some trouble reading White's handwriting. Will see if I can find the published article.

[Denise Hazelwood]

White's article "An Epilogue" found at https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/THWPP/059/THWPP-059-009 mentions the "tunnel" (i.e., Triple Underpass) but no blue-gray building.

[John Butler]

16 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Here's where I will disagree with you somewhat. While I do believe there was a Secret Service warning shot fired by one of Johnson's follow-up car agents on Houston Street Upon seeing the assassin's gun in the window (note Warren Taylor's opening door in the Muchmore film), there were no shots fired from Main Street. The fact that some witnesses may have been located on Main Street does not place the Presidential limo on Main Street.

Bob Yeargan made a film of the presidential limousine and the motorcade on Main Street.  It escaped the dragnet and capture of most media related to the assassination.  It is called the AMIPA film.  Here is a crop from a larger scene showing the presidential limousine on Main Street.

If the president was not shot here, then he may have swallowed a bug and is coughing it up.

IMO, what this shows is the president is shot in the back and the air in his lungs is violently propelled into his mouth in a large quantity and faster than he is able to deal with in a cough puffing his cheeks out.  There are about 3 scenes similar to this suggesting 3 shots to the back.

If that's not true than I don't know what this is.  And, I'm sure JB and JC will capitalize on this statement.

Edited December 3, 2021 by John Butler

[Denise Hazelwood]

Page 4 (by folder page numbering, not White's page numbering)  of White's handwritten notes says "tunnel" though no color (blue-gray).

Page 6 mentions his "quizzical expressio. (same as redacted WC description)" 

The last page (17) of White's handwritten notes looks like the back of the previous page (#16), and has the word "tunnel" written on it. I do not see "blue-gray building" anywhere in White's notes, just references to the "tunnel" (i.e., Triple Underpass) which is in the "Epilogue" article and in Jackie's WC testimony.

 

[Chris Davidson]

25 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Bob Yeargan made a film of the presidential limousine and the motorcade on Main Street.  It escaped the dragnet and capture of most media related to the assassination.  It is called the AMIPA film.  Here is a crop from a larger scene showing the presidential limousine on Main Street.

If the president was not shot here, then he may have swallowed a bug and is coughing it up.

IMO, what this shows is the president is shot in the back and the air in his lungs is violently propelled into his mouth in a large quantity and faster than he is able to deal with in a cough puffing is cheeks out.  There are about 3 scenes similar to this suggesting 3 shots to the back.

If that's not true than I don't know what this is.  And, I'm sure JB and JC will capitalize on this statement.

Sorry John,

Can't support you on this one:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SbJnpdRpvWBOvbpsarluYHOHgsUs8rOV/view?usp=sharing

[Denise Hazelwood]

Can you link to the entire Yeargan/AMIPA film? This is the first I've ever heard of it. While I agree the image of JFK in this one frame is certainly weird, I'd like to see the surrounding frames. 

I am highly skeptical of a shot on Main Street. While there are many witness accounts of a shot "in the turn" from Houston onto Elm,  I really don't think the notion of a shot striking Kennedy while he was on Main Street has much (if any) real support. The Theodore White article you contend has Jackie remembering the "blue-gray building" actually says "tunnel" (i.e., Triple Underpass) in both the article and handwritten notes. 

I can believe a SS warning shot fired from Houston St, given Warren Taylor's door opening in the Muchmore film and the "rejected impulse" in the acoustical evidence. But I'd have to know where Yeargan was located and find supporting witnesses for a shot from there before I'll believe it. Your "Main Street" witnesses may have been standing on Main near Houston when they heard a shot while the motorcade was passing by (and note that "motorcade" ≠ "presidential limo") but I really doubt anything struck Kennedy while he was on Main Street. During the turn from Houston onto Elm, yes. But not Main. 

[Chris Davidson]

On 12/1/2021 at 11:46 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Hi Denise,

Welcome to the forum.

I would first like to commend you for the research you have provided, it is quite voluminous.

We are in agreement on some aspects of the WC charade, but not all.

The first question I would ask is:

Disregarding all films, photos and witness testimony for now, if someone is shot in the forehead in front of the 6th floor snipers nest or shortly thereafter, I know of no-one else(Alan Smith excluded-location questionable) who describes blood running down either the front/back of JFK's face/head as the limo approaches/passes them moving west down Elm St.

If the first shot was a forehead shot and it incapacitated JFK where his throat grab was an involuntary response, shouldn't there be some reference to blood on his face as he wouldn't possess the ability to wipe it off.

The TSBD equivalent out on Elm St is Station# 2+50.0

The extant Z313 shot was plotted at Station# 4+65.3

The span between those two points is 215.3ft.

 

 

 

Where is the blood description from any witness running down JFK's face after being shot in the forehead near the Elm St turn while traveling another 215ft before extant z313?

I don't believe a BB gun would do as much damage as the rifle shot you described would have:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLsdzWF3rvM

[Denise Hazelwood]

From the video link provided by Chris Davidson, here is a grab of that same frame. Much less anomalous. Perhaps Butler's source image contains some digitizing artifacts? While I don't put it past the CIA to have altered any of the Dealey Plaza films, if this one truly "escaped the dragnet" of film collection, as Butler asserts, it does not show any head shot on Main Street. 

 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

Chris Davidson, while I disagree (based on evidence presented by Butler) that the Jeargan film was altered, I absolutely agree that the Z-film was altered. That is one of the central tenets of my documentary. Too many witness accounts put a shot "in the turn." A small forehead wound (and the beginning of the back of the head blowout) would probably put more blood at the back of the head than the front, running down the back of his suit jacket (which is true of the pictures of his clothing, albeit on the left side, which would make sense if his head was turned to the right). Witnesses described him "slumping" which would hide his face from witnesses but might cause a smaller amount of blood to drip from the smaller entrance wound onto his pants.  I don't recall seeing any pictures of his pants, just his jacket and shirt, however. 

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Sorry John,

Can't support you on this one:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SbJnpdRpvWBOvbpsarluYHOHgsUs8rOV/view?usp=sharing

Thanks Chris,

I know.  It is hard to take in and believe.  I don't really support myself since all the evidence points toward something different.  And, most folks do not see what I see.  

Thanks for supporting what you can live with and bluntly telling what you can't.  I couldn't expect more.  Keep up the good work and let me know when I have erred or gone astray.

extra:

It is too much of a headache from opposition to support what I really believe.  The time and energy is just not worth it.  Besides, there is other fish to fry that is more believable such as your work.  Exposure of what happened during the assassination is the first priority and then one can move on to other important aspects of the Kennedy assassination.

The whole truth of the assassination in Dealey Plaza has not been exposed yet.  Enough has that we know basically what happened.  The work of several people in recent years has destroyed the Zapruder film as the main agent of what happened.  Not many people believe the Z film is real.   

Edited December 3, 2021 by John Butler