How to debunk the George Hickey theory?

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

John Butler,

In addition to the "Main Street" error, there is something of an anomaly between Alan Smith saying that the shots came from the window  directly above him, and then later referring to "the Dallas (sic.) School Book Depository building where they said the shots came from." While admittedly this seems to make it appear as if the TSBD was a different building than the one he was standing in front of, I take this as Alan Smith not knowing the name of the building (much like he didn't know the names of the streets) and clumsily saying "where they said the shots came from" in his clumsy attempt to give the name of the building. But his descriptions of what happened next, inelegant though they may be, make it clear that the forehead shot was part of the assassination sequence--on Elm Street.

Denise,

I think your Elm intersection bias is causing you to misread the article on Alan Smith.  Smith said a few minutes later.  He probably ran from Main St. as many others did in time to see what was happening at the TSBD.  He saw what was happening at the TSBD at a later time from his description.

He said he saw the policemen at the TSBD with ladders.  How long do you think it took those policemen to find and employ ladders?  Where did they get them?  The police surrounded the place and then move the crowd away.  This happening is not evident in the early media around the TSBD.  Maybe later.  I would think much later. 

There are no films or photos that put Alan Smith and his friends at the SE corner to the TSBD to be under the Sniper's window.  Just as there are no films or photos that put Alan and his friends in Mannikin Row.  That's Alan and his friends suggesting at least two friends.  They are simply not there.  Same with Pat Speers and Chris Scully.  If you haven't read what I said about this then let me know and I will repost it.

You are operating out of the same mindset as Speers and Scully.  Sorry, if that sounds rude or obnoxious.  They could not conceive of shooting on Main Street therefore Alan Smith had to be confused and wrong.  His character had to be challenged and discredited.  Not everything fits shooting at the Elm Street intersection.  Consider Altgens 5 and its alteration.  Why was it altered?  Generally, when you alter film you what to tell a story that is different than what actually occurred.  

I believe that the JFKA happened there from the witnesses and the Zapruder Gap.  I think thinks happened in the Zapruder Gap and that's why it was excised from the film.  There are many more witness statements that read as the ones I listed but it is as if someone changed the statements to read past the TSBD down toward the triple underpass.   

[Denise Hazelwood]

John,

The thing is, I don't think there are any real witnesses to Kennedy being shot on Main Street. We have Nellie Connally (who adamantly disagreed with the Single Bullet Theory) saying "You can't say Dallas doesn't love you" on Houston Street, with Kennedy replying, "No, you certainly can't." Your only "Main Street" witness  likely just didn't know the names of the streets. Your other witnesses were possibly on Main Street near Houston "when the motorcade passed" (motorcade ≠ presidential limo) when they heard a shot. 

However, there are plenty of "turn" witnesses, as you yourself have pointed out. If you consider the possibility that Alan Smith's window was the TSBD window, it makes a lot more sense. 

And yes, of course, the ladders, et. al. would have, happened later. 

 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

John,

More on the "tunnel" vs. "blue-gray building": 

My friend did send me more articles in another email. It was in another email that I hadn't yet seen.

My newspaper.com friend's analysis: "It was reported different in various articles, as a tunnel ahead, as a blue-gray building, or sometimes both in the same article."

Here one is where it was reported as "both in the same article." Look at the box immediately to the left of the giant "1' in the advertisement. It will say "blue-gray building." Then look in the paragraph immediately above that one, which says "tunnel." The "blue-gray building" didn't appear until 1978. Given the "tunnel" in the original article and handwritten notes, I think it somehow got switched to "building." Maybe from "blue-gray sky"? That's my conjecture. (I didn't see "blue-gray" anything in the handwritten notes, which were admittedly not very easy to read). I really do think something just got lost in the translation.

 

(I hope this attachment is legible. I had to reduce size to get it to post.)

[Denise Hazelwood]

Sorry, meant to say look in the paragraph immediately above the box to the immediate left of the giant "1" ("blue-gray building") and in the paragraph immediately above that one ("tunnel").

-Denise

[John Butler]

29 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

John,

The thing is, I don't think there are any real witnesses to Kennedy being shot on Main Street. We have Nellie Connally (who adamantly disagreed with the Single Bullet Theory) saying "You can't say Dallas doesn't love you" on Houston Street, with Kennedy replying, "No, you certainly can't." Your only "Main Street" witness  likely just didn't know the names of the streets. Your other witnesses were possibly on Main Street near Houston "when the motorcade passed" (motorcade ≠ presidential limo) when they heard a shot. 

However, there are plenty of "turn" witnesses, as you yourself have pointed out. If you consider the possibility that Alan Smith's window was the TSBD window, it makes a lot more sense. 

And yes, of course, the ladders, et. al. would have, happened later. 

 

 

Except for Allen and the AMIPA film.  There were witnesses who testified to hearing gunshots when the p. limo was on Main Street.  True, few in number.  You know Alan's friends were never tracked down and interviewed leaving poor Alan to swing in the wind.

Just as you can't rely on the media to be honest and unaltered, you can't rely on the witnesses to be honest and non-biased.  John and Nellie were politicians.  They said what they could under the constraints of the time.  If their testimony was allowed to vary then that's just more point towards their honesty.  Or, maybe not.

Every testimony in Dealey Plaza dealing with the JFKA has to be viewed suspiciously.  Was the witness allowed to be honest and testify to what they knew?  Was their testimony coerced?  Were they told what to say.  Or, changed later by the FBI or other government authorities?  How much was rehearsed before testifying to the WC lawyers and WC members? 

Basically, on any event in Dealey Plaza you can find contrary information or a different view point.  That is why in 58 years there is no agreement on the assassination.  Everyone thinks something different.  There is agreement on some things, but not all.  We tend to think we are right with what we see and think.  And, a lot of times that is not the case.

Fortunately, for myself, I have a number of good people who keep track of what I say and point out where I am wrong or where they think I am wrong.  When they take the time to do that generally they are right.  Not always, but mostly.

I generally don't support what I think about Main Street by arguing with another.  It is a waste of my energy and time.  Most folks don't see what I see or admit it.  But, I am not going to change my mind since I have spent years and months looking at these things and these are the only conclusions I can come to.    

 

[John Butler]

12 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

John,

More on the "tunnel" vs. "blue-gray building": 

My friend did send me more articles in another email. It was in another email that I hadn't yet seen.

My newspaper.com friend's analysis: "It was reported different in various articles, as a tunnel ahead, as a blue-gray building, or sometimes both in the same article."

Here one is where it was reported as "both in the same article." Look at the box immediately to the left of the giant "1' in the advertisement. It will say "blue-gray building." Then look in the paragraph immediately above that one, which says "tunnel." The "blue-gray building" didn't appear until 1978. Given the "tunnel" in the original article and handwritten notes, I think it somehow got switched to "building." Maybe from "blue-gray sky"? That's my conjecture. (I didn't see "blue-gray" anything in the handwritten notes, which were admittedly not very easy to read). I really do think something just got lost in the translation.

 

(I hope this attachment is legible. I had to reduce size to get it to post.)

Be nice to read this.

[Denise Hazelwood]

John, 

"A few minutes later" was when there were "hundreds of policemen around the building." Not when Alan Smith got there. Young Alan specifically described Jackie's reaction and blood everywhere--which doesn't match any descriptions of anything happening on Main Street. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

John,

I don't see what you're contending to be in the AMIPA Yeargan film, and chalk up the apparent anomalies in Alan Smith's account to a 14-year-old boy's lack of familiarity with street names and building names. Yes, there were a number of witnesses who were standing on Main Street watching the motorcade pass by when they heard the shots, and as you pointed out in one of your posts, they then ran to Elm Street. If Kennedy was shot on Main Street, I don't think he would have responded so positively to Nellie Connally's comment about Dallas loving him. Nellie Connally certainly was not supportive of the official version of events. I don't think she (and Jackie, who IIRC, mentioned it in her WC testimony) would have lied about that verbal exchange.

[Denise Hazelwood]

Quote

Every testimony in Dealey Plaza dealing with the JFKA has to be viewed suspiciously.  Was the witness allowed to be honest and testify to what they knew?  Was their testimony coerced?  Were they told what to say.  Or, changed later by the FBI or other government authorities?  How much was rehearsed before testifying to the WC lawyers and WC members? 

Actually, I view the witness testimonies and statements as more reliable than the assassination films and photographs, especially since the Z-film shows indications of alteration and witnesses like Linda Willis describe photographs as being "altered" etc. etc. etc.

I do contend that witnesses may have misperceived actions (e.g., movement into decorticate posture as "waving" or the landing of a skull fragment as "sparks"), but I don't think they would have lied. Of course, there is the danger of the misinformation effect, which would explain why Bill Newman's story changed over time to be more in line with the Z-film, and why witnesses tended to report "three" shots when more than 3 were actually fired. Same day and contemporaneous accounts are more valuable than decades-later accounts, but that is due to the reconstructive nature of memory rather than "coerced" testimony or the like. Given that many contemporaneous witness accounts don't really fit the official conclusion, I don't think they were changed much (especially Sheriff's Dept. reports. However, I do acknowledge Mark Lane saying that the WC "changed" S.M. Holland's testimony (and Holland seemingly agreeing), though it is never specified in what way Holland's testimony was "changed." In any case, I don't think the Sheriff's Dept reports or FBI interview accounts were changed much, if at all. 

I would be very interested in learning about witnesses who described their testimonies as being changed or "coerced." Holland's is the only account I have come across that has any mention of being "changed." I'd also like to know specifically what was changed.

One thing I have come across is testimony involving drawings or photographs that were supposedly marked by a witness, and being unable to find the witness mark, or witnesses like Virgie Rachley Baker being given an exhibit to mark that was exactly opposite to her perspective in order to confuse her--evidence of cover-up in that regard, which is not exactly the same as "coercion." I've also come across accounts (like James Tague) of witnesses trying to be "discredited" or "mistaken" when their accounts didn't agree with whatever the official fiction was at the time. And I do think Dr. Humes was willing to commit dissemblance bordering on perjury for his HSCA testimony and autopsy report. But the ordinary citizens who happened to be witnesses being "coerced" into giving false testimony? That I'm not so sure about. Lawyers' tricks, yes. Cover-up, most certainly. Coercion, maybe not.

 

[John Butler]

Alan Smith was neither at the TSBD under the Sniper's Nest at the SE corner of the building, nor was he in the area I call Manniken Row on Elm Street. 

First off I could only find a couple of photos/films that show the area in detail clear enough to determine Alan Smith and at least two friends were not there.

First off in a Bell frame crop:

 Mostly women there and one male who could be James Worrell.

Next is a Betzner 2 crop:

Again, mostly women and one male leaning against the building and probably James Worrell.

Next is from Bronson film and a crop of one of the frames:

In this frame we see Speer/Scully's claim for Alan Smith and friend.  Not friends.  Alan said friends implying at least two.

The next is a comparison of a frame and photo showing the same area at the same time.  They are different and contradict Bronson.

In the bottom Z frame the individual is named as John Templin. 

Alan Smith was not in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.  He was on Main Street. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

John, here's a crop of the relevant portion of the article above. The forum limits size to about 1.5MB. Note "tunnel" in the top paragraph, and "building" just above the square.

.

[Denise Hazelwood]

John,

I believe Alan Smith may be one of the boys in the Altgens 6 photograph and Couch film, as I note in Part 6 of my documentary. Note that it is an illusion that the 2 boys in Altgens 6 are on the other side of Houston due to the access road running in front of the TSBD. they are actually in front of the TSBD.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Denise,

Yes, I'm familiar with Doug Horne's ideas. He weaves an elaborate tapestry of fraud out of nothing more substantial than a couple of decades-old recollections.

Horne is also the guy who wasted the ARRB's time by promoting Lifton's body-alteration nonsense. Why should anyone take his opinions seriously?

One of the documents I linked to a few posts ago points out several fatal problems with Horne's scenario, and notes his "inability to comprehend fundamental film technology and basic laboratory practices". You should read it:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf (7.8 MB)

Horne proposed that:

1. alterations were made to the original Zapruder film;
2. the altered film was copied onto a new reel of Kodachrome film;
3. the film in the National Archives is that copy.

But we know that this scenario cannot be true. The film in the Archives is not a copy; it is the original film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination.

As far as I'm aware, Horne hasn't overcome this obstacle. If he has, could you point me to his revised account? If he hasn't, perhaps you could answer the question I asked earlier:

Given that the film in the National Archives is not a copy but the original film that was in Zapruder's camera, how were your proposed alterations actually done without a Kodachrome copy being made?

[John Butler]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

But we know that this scenario cannot be true. The film in the Archives is not a copy; it is the original film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination.

Jeremy,

You make these bold proclamations on a regular basis.  I have yet to see any proof to back up such statements as this from you.  Show me how you know this to be true and maybe I will pay more attention.

[John Butler]

There are no teenage boys here.  You can see a part of the SE corner and just women and one man.

There are not 3 teenage boys here, Alan and at least 2 friends.  

Altgens 6 is a twisty, old quirky thing.  People generally say this or that based on their version of the perspective found in this picture. 

It is a fraud and any portion of it is suspect.  This crop shows you that it is an add-on photo with elements taken from  other media.  Here we see a motorbike cop in normal perspective, then the VP security vehicle badly distorted in perspective, and just behind it we see people in a normal perspective.  It is part of the magic of Dealey Plaza.  OBTW, you can see the transparent rifle or shotgun held out the window.  More magic.

The young man and smaller boy do not fit the image of Alan Smith and at least two other teenage boys.

I have thought about the VP security vehicle shown here for years and have come up with nothing to explain it in the way it is shown. 

This vehicle is shown in the Zapruder film around the frame Z 157.  Here is a composite of Zapruder and Altgens comparing this vehicle with what it would look like normally.

In Altgens 6 the vehicle is distorted.  In Zapruder the appearance is even worse.  The top has been put on the vehicle backwards presenting an unreal image of the vehicle.  The top is going one way while the bottom is going another.  Why?  That is the question I have been asking myself for years.

So, I have decided to amaze and astonish my two main critics at this time.

In Altgens 6 the vehicle didn't make it into the intersection and had to be placed there.  Where was it?  Stopped on Houston with the rest of the motorcade.

In Zapruder we see a different version of the VP security vehicle.  This one is absolutely weird.  But, it fits with the idea that this vehicle was held up on Houston Street.  It had to be placed into the film at that location.  But, they didn't have good photos to use and ended up having to put together a top and a bottom going in different directions to have that vehicle placed into Zapruder.

No worries, mate.  No one would ever see that.  And, for over 50 years that was true.

   

Edited December 5, 2021 by John Butler