Denise's Scenario -- Shot 1

[Denise Hazelwood]

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I went back and read the Acknowledgements and The Critics sections.  I still see no reason to believe Hickey's AR-15 was fired at all, intentionally or by accident.  There still are no eyewitnesses, ear witnesses, photographs, film, statements or testimony to any of this.

Well, I haven’t really addressed that shot (#4) yet, but I do have the Shanklin memo (uncovered by John Hunt) that puts the gun that fired the bullet that apparently killed the President in the hands of the SS immediately after the shooting. On the same day. And the weapon was prone to slam fire. And the nose witnesses. And the early erroneous reports of a SS man being killed too. And…and…and… Put it all together, and it builds up a pretty good case. And it explains all the cover up shenanigans.

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The reason for my pessimism is I feel this theory distracts from serious discourse about the assassination just like the Greer did it theory. 

While I agree that Greer did NOT do it, the theory was serious when it was put out there. I was able to interview a woman who heard over the NY radio Sam Pate saying that “a SS man accidentally shot the President.” This would explain why the radio tapes were stolen from the KBOX office and Pate was fired from his job and subsequently asked to “recreate” the “something has happened in the motorcade” broadcast in a studio and there is evidence of a “splice” in the dicta belt recording. In one of the other threads was a comment that Pate was worried about the “witness kill list,” which explains part of why he never spoke up. Anyway, this woman happened to see someone with the “Greer did it” theory giving a presentation showing the Z-film in a nightclub. She wasn’t convinced at first, until she saw some version of the film shown on the CBS news (one time viewing). She really believed it at that point.  Robert Harris debunked it as a reflection of Brill cream off Greer’s head, but that doesn’t mean that the notion wasn’t taken seriously by a lot of people. I have links to YouTube from my video interview of this woman, which was supplemented by message exchanges. She was grateful that someone was taking her seriously. See the “Molly Cruz Interview” area of my website.

Edited May 16 by Denise Hazelwood
Fixed typo “I” —> it

[Denise Hazelwood]

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Or the lone nut Oswald did it with two shots that hit from the rear theory.  That last one took a commission of "some of the most respected men" in the U S to get what, 30% now of our citizens to believe it.

Doesn’t cover up of the AR-15 accident explain all the shenanigans that occurred?

[Denise Hazelwood]

11 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

and there is evidence of a “splice” in the dicta belt recording

I should clarify that the splice was “well after” the suspect impulses and that Pate was listening to the motorcade channel not the dicta belt channel and relating that information over the public radio. But I think the splice is related to all of this. And the tape was run through AGC before the acoustical experts got it, but nevertheless it retained enough information for them to find the echo patterns. It’s all part of the cover up.

[Nick Bartetzko]

20 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Well, I haven’t really addressed that shot (#4) yet, but I do have the Shanklin memo (uncovered by John Hunt) that puts the gun that fired the bullet that apparently killed the President in the hands of the SS immediately after the shooting. On the same day. And the weapon was prone to slam fire. And the nose witnesses. And the early erroneous reports of a SS man being killed too. And…and…and… Put it all together, and it builds up a pretty good case. And it explains all the cover up shenanigans.

While I agree that Greer did NOT do it, the theory was serious when it was put out there. I was able to interview a woman who heard over the NY radio Sam Pate saying that “a SS man accidentally shot the President.” This would explain why the radio tapes were stolen from the KBOX office and Pate was fired from his job and subsequently asked to “recreate” the “something has happened in the motorcade” broadcast in a studio and there is evidence of a “splice” in the dicta belt recording. In one of the other threads was a comment that Pate was worried about the “witness kill list,” which explains part of why he never spoke up. Anyway, this woman happened to see someone with the “Greer did it” theory giving a presentation showing the Z-film in a nightclub. She wasn’t convinced at first, until she saw some version of the film shown on the CBS news (one time viewing). She really believed it at that point.  Robert Harris debunked it as a reflection of Brill cream off Greer’s head, but that doesn’t mean that the notion wasn’t taken seriously by a lot of people. I have links to YouTube from my video interview of this woman, which was supplemented by message exchanges. She was grateful that someone was taking her seriously. See the “Molly Cruz Interview” area of my website.

Well, the information about the Shanklin memo,  the woman claiming to hear Sam Pate's comment about the SS accidentally having shot JFK and the KBOX audio tapes being stolen are all new to me. So I'm interested to see what else you come up with. It still doesn't make much sense because JFK would have been dead already from a shot from the front. However, a 2nd headshot from the rear coincides with Thompson's scenario of that rear shot around Z328 if I recall correctly. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

3 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

It still doesn't make much sense because JFK would have been dead already from a shot from the front. 

3 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

Some people do survive getting shot in the head. Malala Yousafzai won her Nobel prize after being shot in the head, for example. Gabby Gifford is another example. But whether JFK would’ve survived the first shot had the AR-15 shot not occurred is an open question. The “Lazarus sign” decorticate posture chest grab is indicative of severe neurological trauma, so odds are that he probably wouldn’t have survived, or if he had, he wouldn’t have been able to function as President. There was some discussion in (Kemp Clark’s?) WC testimony about how JFK’s ability to read and other functions would have been had he survived that I thought was interesting (made me wonder if the doctor was somehow “in the know”?) but the AR-15 shot really made the whole thing moot.

 

3 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

However, a 2nd headshot from the rear coincides with Thompson's scenario of that rear shot around Z328 if I recall correctly.

Well, I do contend that the Z-film was altered, so I don’t trust everything that it purports to show. For example, I contend that the limo position in Z313 was the shot that struck Connally, based on Mary Moorman’s statement about not knowing JFK had been shot until she saw him “slumped” in her picture and then hearing 2 more shots after she took her picture, with JFK’s “hair jump” occurring with the NEXT shot as she was looking through her viewfinder to try to take another picture. She thought her photo was concurrent with the “first” shot. There’s a very interesting .gif posted in another thread with Z-film frames minus 313 that shows a spray that seems to come from behind Connally passing JFK towards the rear of the car. That said, I would appreciate a point towards the Thompson Z-328 information. Was it in “Last Second”? I don’t recall…

[Denise Hazelwood]

50 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

There’s a very interesting .gif posted in another thread with Z-film frames minus 313 that shows a spray that seems to come from behind Connally passing JFK towards the rear of the car.

The poster was Keven Hofeling in the thread that Vince Palamara started "Greatest challenge to conspiracy side; greatest challenge to lone-nut side" (page 3). I also posted the .gif on my website in my (unfinished) article "What happened - Shot 3" at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/what-happened---shot-3.html (It's currently the only thing posted in that article, which I haven't really begun writing yet, but I wanted to get the .gif posted before I lost track of it.) You may have to watch it loop several times to see what I'm talking about. 

 

[Robert Burrows]

On 5/16/2024 at 12:59 AM, Denise Hazelwood said:

Doesn’t cover up of the AR-15 accident explain all the shenanigans that occurred?

No.

[Denise Hazelwood]

17 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

No.

Well, I’m not done with the entire scenario yet. What do you think about my Shot 1 information?

[Nick Bartetzko]

22 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

 

Well, I do contend that the Z-film was altered, so I don’t trust everything that it purports to show. For example, I contend that the limo position in Z313 was the shot that struck Connally, based on Mary Moorman’s statement about not knowing JFK had been shot until she saw him “slumped” in her picture and then hearing 2 more shots after she took her picture, with JFK’s “hair jump” occurring with the NEXT shot as she was looking through her viewfinder to try to take another picture. She thought her photo was concurrent with the “first” shot. There’s a very interesting .gif posted in another thread with Z-film frames minus 313 that shows a spray that seems to come from behind Connally passing JFK towards the rear of the car. That said, I would appreciate a point towards the Thompson Z-328 information. Was it in “Last Second”? I don’t recall…

I do believe it was in Last Second. There is a video presentation pertaining to the Z328 scenario and I believe it was by Thompson at a symposium and/or when he was promoting his book. I thought isolating those frames and playing them repeatedly was very convincing. I think a bullet from the rear had to account for the dent up high in the windshield chrome and bloody tissue in the front of the vehicle. I have only seen that video a couple of times.

[Denise Hazelwood]

22 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

I think a bullet from the rear had to account for the dent up high in the windshield chrome and bloody tissue in the front of the vehicle.

Well, a missile had to have come from the rear, but it could have been a bullet fragment rather than an intact bullet, and it could have been from a frontal shot if it had ricocheted. The Charles Taylor report describes the chrome dent as having come from the bullet FRAGMENT that was embedded in the front seat. I suspect that any bloody matter at the front of the car came from the AR-15 shot, but I also heard an account of a kid handing a bone fragment to a SS man who tossed it into the car. But the Connally’s were struck by some matter that apparently went all over the car, so there’s that. The stuff at the BACK of the car (e.g., the skull fragment Jackie was after) might have come from the frontal shot, my first shot. 

Are you proposing that the nose and tail bullet fragments came from a rear shot? If so, where’s the middle of the bullet? I propose that the nose and tail fragments came from the same bullet as Custer’s “king size fragment” and that the back wound and Custer’s fragment came from a ricochet, as was reported in the early leaked autopsy report. 
 

I did at one point toy with the idea that a missed shot from the rear hit the chrome strip and then fragmented, sending the middle fragment out of the car, but I couldn’t do it without adding a shot to the acoustical evidence, which I like. With the odds being something like 10,000,000 to 1 against the acoustical impulses being by chance, per Donald Thomas, I was trying to explain the evidence without adding any shots not in the acoustics or witnessed by a bystander.

[Nick Bartetzko]

19 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Well, a missile had to have come from the rear, but it could have been a bullet fragment rather than an intact bullet, and it could have been from a frontal shot if it had ricocheted. The Charles Taylor report describes the chrome dent as having come from the bullet FRAGMENT that was embedded in the front seat. I suspect that any bloody matter at the front of the car came from the AR-15 shot, but I also heard an account of a kid handing a bone fragment to a SS man who tossed it into the car. But the Connally’s were struck by some matter that apparently went all over the car, so there’s that. The stuff at the BACK of the car (e.g., the skull fragment Jackie was after) might have come from the frontal shot, my first shot. 

Are you proposing that the nose and tail bullet fragments came from a rear shot? If so, where’s the middle of the bullet? I propose that the nose and tail fragments came from the same bullet as Custer’s “king size fragment” and that the back wound and Custer’s fragment came from a ricochet, as was reported in the early leaked autopsy report. 
 

I did at one point toy with the idea that a missed shot from the rear hit the chrome strip and then fragmented, sending the middle fragment out of the car, but I couldn’t do it without adding a shot to the acoustical evidence, which I like. With the odds being something like 10,000,000 to 1 against the acoustical impulses being by chance, per Donald Thomas, I was trying to explain the evidence without adding any shots not in the acoustics or witnessed by a bystander.

Well, I certainly think it was a fragment. I have no experience with ballistics, but it seems a direct hit would have caused much more damage to the chrome. As to where's the middle of the bullet, we already are missing the bullet or fragment that was recovered in the limousine at the request of Dr James Young during the autopsy and then we have the bullet given by a Connally nurse to a Texas state trooper. Those as both missing. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

5 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

it seems a direct hit would have caused much more damage to the chrome. 

Right!

5 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

As to where's the middle of the bullet, we already are missing the bullet or fragment that was recovered in the limousine at the request of Dr James Young during the autopsy and then we have the bullet given by a Connally nurse to a Texas state trooper. Those as both missing. 

Yup! Quietly made to “disappear.” But if they were willing to admit to the nose and tail fragments, then why not the middle section? (Because admitting that it fell out of the back wound would have destroyed the SBT.)

Just a correction: Dr. Young didn’t order the limo to be searched, Dr. Humes did. Dr. Young was just an observer in the Gallery who happened to be in a position to see the bullet when it was delivered into the autopsy, as was Captain (later Admiral) David Osborne.

[Nick Bartetzko]

On 5/19/2024 at 10:17 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

Right!

Yup! Quietly made to “disappear.” But if they were willing to admit to the nose and tail fragments, then why not the middle section? (Because admitting that it fell out of the back wound would have destroyed the SBT.)

Just a correction: Dr. Young didn’t order the limo to be searched, Dr. Humes did. Dr. Young was just an observer in the Gallery who happened to be in a position to see the bullet when it was delivered into the autopsy, as was Captain (later Admiral) David Osborne.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I thought that it was Dr. Young who had actually requested the search.