George Hickey heard more than "a sound" early on.

ME: Did George Hickey say he heard a firecracker?

Perplexity AI: Yes.  Hickey’s statement says, “I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker,” and also that it “appeared to come from the right and rear.” He goes on to say that he later heard “two reports” that he thought were shots, so in his own account the “firecracker” description refers to the first sound, not the later pair.

. . . . . .

Regarding whether he looked "over his right shoulder" or down at the pavement after hearing the early-on firecracker-like "sound," what does the Zapruder film show?

Hickey describes the second two reports as "completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them." That doesn't sound to me like he was describing the second and third shots since those two came almost 5 seconds apart. "No time element between them" sounds like a description of a double sound produced by a single shot. If that is so, what Hickey described as the first shot would have actually been the second.  He estimated that the total elapsed time was about 5 seconds from the first shot he heard until the last. If  that is accurate, that's further indication he only heard the second and third shots and not the first. The sequence of events as he described them ar as follows:

1. Hickey first hears a shot.
2. Hickey looks to the right rear.
3. 2-3 seconds later, Hickey looks to JFK and sees his reaction to being shot.
4. Hickey hears a double sound and sees JFK was shot in the back of the head.

I can reconcile this account only if I believe he did not hear the first shot. The other way to reconcile it is that he got the sequence and timing of the events wrong.
Either is possible, but Hickey not hearing the first shot seems to be the more probable answer.

Because of the general dysfunction of the research community Pitzer was not explored as deeply as he should have been...

I'm convinced Pitzer's witnessing was one of the more bizarre coincidences of the assassination and that he accidentally filmed the covert pre-autopsy and alteration of the wounds thinking he was filming the official autopsy...If Dennis David had seen Pitzer's raw footage he probably would have realized Pitzer captured the criminal alteration of the wounds on film...To make truth even stranger than fiction, Pitzer may have not realized he filmed the illegal alteration of the wounds and may have thought he was filming the main autopsy...Or he may have realized later on what he filmed and that is what led to his enthusiasm of showing it on film...It may explain Pitzer's enthusiasm that caused him to go drag Dennis David out of the hallway and in to his office to show him...This needed to be said to Dennis David directly to get his opinion on whether that was what he witnessed...You can see the imperative by CIA to get rid of Pitzer, considering...He caught them red-handed...

To the best of my knowledge, Hickey never testified before the WC. The only record of his account of the assassination is his report on the incident:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-hicke.htm

Hickey's report does not mention looking over the side of the limo to his left. He makes no mention of looking to his left upon hearing the first shot. He says his reaction was to look over his right shoulder to a sound he perceived to have come from ground level.  By his estimate, it was 2-3 seconds later that he looked to the limo and saw JFK reacting to being shot. He then heard a double report from the headshot. This tells me two things. Like other agents, he either didn't hear or recognize the first sound as a gunshot. I continue to believe the roar of the motorcycles contributed to a muffling of the sound of the first shot so that a number of people did not recognize it. The first sound he recognized as a gunshot was actually the second shot which had struck JFK. By the time JFK was hit by the second shot, Hickey is out of the frame so we can't see how he reacted to the second shot. The double report he heard as JFK was struck in the head was likely a double sound from a single shot. Perhaps it was the sonic crack of the bullet passing over his head which he would have heard a split second before the muzzle blast. As with other witnesses, we can't be certain Hickey had perfect recall of the sequence of events, but I see nothing in Hickey's report that gives us a clue as to when the first shot was fired unless one wants to believe that JFK was hit by the first shot, which I don't and I don't think you do either.

The clincher for me was watching Lt. Col. (Ret.) Dan Marvin's interview for the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Ted Yacucci includes this segment in his video on the Pitzer case, The Murder of Naval Commander William Pitzer. The segment is broken into two parts: the first part starts at 12:42 and ends at 15:40, and the second part runs from 18:17 to the end of the video (22:06). (From 15:41 to 18:16 there is part of an interview with Dennis David about Pitzer.)

Marvin comes across as sincere, well spoken, educated, and serious. I was especially impressed with his emotional expression of concern over what his family would think of him after he revealed his previous role as a military assassin and his expression of hope that his disclosure would be helpful to the nation. I find him to be an entirely credible witness.

I don't think any honest, objective person could watch Marvin's interview and come away believing he was "one of the worst of the hoaxers/crackpots." He was nothing of the kind. Nigel Turner's investigators verified Marvin's service, verified his stationing on Fort Bragg at the time he said he was approached by the CIA officer about killing Pitzer, and verified that there was a Captain David Vanek assigned to his unit at the time.

For an in-depth online review of the Pitzer case, I recommend Jeff Crudele's video The Mystery of William Bruce Pitzer And An Interview with his Nephew Bruce Fernandez. Much of the video is an interview with Pitzer's nephew Bruce Fernandez. Crudele displays the FBI document on Pitzer's death so you can see the source for yourself.

It is remarkable that WC apologists who (correctly) accept the EOP entry site refuse to admit that the EOP site proves the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

It is remarkable that MTG considers himself to be competent to make such a judgement.

Yes, I agree: The evidence strongly favors the EOP site. I was encouraged to see Lance Payette state that he is convinced by Pat Speer's arguments for the EOP site. Dr. Larry Sturdivan, the former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, argues for the EOP site in his book The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination. Dr. David Mantik likewise argues for the EOP site in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis. Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, argued for the EOP site and noted that the area of the brain beneath the phantom cowlick entry site is undamaged:

We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the
part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet. ("What Struck John?" pp. 4-5, https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Five autopsy witnesses -- Sibert, O'Neill, Lipsey, Stringer, and Kellerman -- said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP or the hairline. The three autopsy doctors insisted to their dying days that the EOP site was correct.

Not surprising that a person totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence would cite other people totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence.

 

The problem is that the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to the right occipital lobe, but a bullet that entered near the EOP could not have missed tearing through the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP correctly pointed out. The FPP hammered the autopsy doctors on this point, and they had no explanation for it. However, the FPP argument against the EOP site only works if the brain photos are authentic.

MTG tries to substitute his judgement of what the medical evidence is based on a few leaked photos and x-rays for the unanimous judgement of a panel of some of the most highly qualified forensic medical examiners of their day who saw ALL the photos and ALL the x-rays. So who should we believe? MTG or the FPP? Of course, the question answers itself.

It is remarkable that WC apologists who (correctly) accept the EOP entry site refuse to admit that the EOP site proves the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

The evidence that the brain photos are fraudulent is truly impressive. As experts from both sides have confirmed, the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue. Yet, multiple sets of optical-density measurements have confirmed that about 2/3 of the right brain is missing in the autopsy skull x-rays, a fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted in 1975 when he served on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. Humes himself told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away. A number of witnesses who saw the brain said that 1/4 to 1/2 of it was missing. And, we have a veritable mountain of eyewitness testimony that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces, and that's not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins. [/quote]

The evidence that MTG is an amateur hack trying to perform analysis that requires years of medical training and experience is truly impressive.

Only those who are emotionally committed to believing in the lone-gunman theory will continue to believe the autopsy brain photos are genuine.

Only extremely gullible CT fanatics would believe MTG is competent to make such judgements based an a smattering of the medical evidence he has seen.