From Behind the Fence

[Dan O'meara]

Dan O'meara wrote:  "...[unless it's something like Marjan's theory that Hickey shot JFK which has literally no evidence to support it and is just made-up nonsense]."

Dan, Thanks for your reply, and for all the information you posted.  One thing I disagree with is your statement that Marjan has no evidence to support the idea that Hickey accidentally shot JFK.  On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence from Dealey Plaza. But the most convincing evidence of all is the bizarre and illegal behavior of the Secret Service, in Dallas and during the 60 years that have followed.  Almost immediately on Nov. 22, the Secret Service began a coverup, beginning with an agent outside Parkland removing blood and tissue from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge.  No law enforcement agency behaves that way. Blood spatter is primary evidence in a homicide. It is never disturbed, at least not until a complete set of photos has been taken.  To make things worse, neither the Secret Service nor the FBI had jurisdiction in this case.  Strange as it sounds, in 1963 there was no federal law against killing a president or anyone else.  The law that LHO broke that day was the Texas law against homicide. The State of Texas and the City of Dallas had complete jurisdiction.  No wonder the Dallas medical examiner went nuts when the Secret Service removed JFK's body from Dallas before an autopsy could be done in Texas. Ever since Nov. 22, the Secret Service has been conducting itself with "mens rea," legal Latin for "guilty mind." Right from the start, they have threatened the medical examiner, doctors, and x-ray technicians. They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube), and they confiscated JFK's brain and maybe his whole body. This behavior is evidence they were covering up the accidental shot(s) that Hickey fired on Nov. 22. Worst of all, the Secret Service protected itself first, inflicting terrible trauma on the nation they supposedly serve. And they're still doing it 60 years later.     

But the most convincing evidence of all is the bizarre and illegal behavior of the Secret Service, in Dallas and during the 60 years that have followed

Hi Della, I couldn't agree more with you about the actions of the Secret Service. The limo should've been treated as a crime scene and the agents who interfered with it would know that. I believe they knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence found in the limo.
But this is not evidence that Hickey shot JFK with an AR-15.
And I don't understand why you would think it is evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15 and accidentally killed the President.
I'm really baffled by why you think the two things are linked.
"The most convincing evidence", as you put it, is no evidence at all.
Evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15 would be an image of him doing that. Or film evidence. Or someone in the car he was in mentioning it. Or someone in the cars following his mentioning it or one of the twenty plus witnesses stood a feet away on Elm Street mentioning it.
But there is none of this.
As I said, there is not a single scrap of evidence that Hickey took the head shot.


They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube),

You've made this claim a number of times now and it's false.
I've watched the Zapruder Film Mystery a few times and this is not mentioned.
Doug Horne, who's focus is demonstrating that the Z-film was altered, is interviewing a man who examined the original film in extreme detail.
It is notable that Horne does not ask Dino a single question about alteration [as that is the whole point of this video - Horne using Dino to support the notion that the Z-film was altered]. What happens is really cowardly in my opinion. Horne is interviewing Dino, who never mentions anything even remotely connected to film alteration, and it keeps cutting back to Horne on his own who "interprets" what Dino is saying. It's despicable, really. About half an hour in it cuts to a fraction of another interview between Dino and Peter Janney. Janney is showing Dino a single frame from the Z-film and telling him that this is the only frame that shows JFK's head exploding in the modern version of the Z-film. Dino can't believe it, he says there were definitely more frames showing the "pink mist" of  that surrounds JFK's head at the moment of impact. Horne then uses this to imply that Dino is saying the version of the Z-film he worked with is different from the modern version. It's just unbelievably underhand because Janney is lying to Dino when he says the single frame is the only frame showing the head exploding and the pink mist emerging from JFK's head. Dino is right, there are more frames showing this.



The Z-film is not altered. There is no evidence for alteration. The report by Roland Zavada establishes the authenticity of the Z-film and that it is unaltered.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I have had a debate previously about rifle smoke and someone brought up the following situation, in 1966, Charles Whitman was firing from a tower and some sort of particulate matter can be seen, which is in direct contrast to my above examples! Iirc a Weapons Expert advised us that the airborne matter was most likely the dislodging of dust and cement particles from the sonic effects of the repeated firing of the weapon. I believe someone else suggested an overly oiled barrel and the high temperature of constant firing. In conclusion the "behind the fence" sniper was not affected by any of these possible scenarios.

@2:50

JohnM

The tree branch leaves would be covered in dust from the gravel carpark.
Some time ago i said that Hickey's auto burst might have shaken the dust off, what with the direct blast & the echo off the fence, albeit from a long way away.
A shot from on the fence would be more likely to shake dust off, except that a shot from the fence was an impossibility.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Dan O'meara wrote:  "...[unless it's something like Marjan's theory that Hickey shot JFK which has literally no evidence to support it and is just made-up nonsense]."

Dan, Thanks for your reply, and for all the information you posted.  One thing I disagree with is your statement that Marjan has no evidence to support the idea that Hickey accidentally shot JFK.  On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence from Dealey Plaza. But the most convincing evidence of all is the bizarre and illegal behavior of the Secret Service, in Dallas and during the 60 years that have followed.  Almost immediately on Nov. 22, the Secret Service began a coverup, beginning with an agent outside Parkland removing blood and tissue from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge.  No law enforcement agency behaves that way. Blood spatter is primary evidence in a homicide. It is never disturbed, at least not until a complete set of photos has been taken.  To make things worse, neither the Secret Service nor the FBI had jurisdiction in this case.  Strange as it sounds, in 1963 there was no federal law against killing a president or anyone else.  The law that LHO broke that day was the Texas law against homicide. The State of Texas and the City of Dallas had complete jurisdiction.  No wonder the Dallas medical examiner went nuts when the Secret Service removed JFK's body from Dallas before an autopsy could be done in Texas. Ever since Nov. 22, the Secret Service has been conducting itself with "mens rea," legal Latin for "guilty mind." Right from the start, they have threatened the medical examiner, doctors, and x-ray technicians. They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube), and they confiscated JFK's brain and maybe his whole body. This behavior is evidence they were covering up the accidental shot(s) that Hickey fired on Nov. 22. Worst of all, the Secret Service protected itself first, inflicting terrible trauma on the nation they supposedly serve. And they're still doing it 60 years later.     

Dont forget the dent in the chrome trim.
Dont forget that the AR15 was placed into service in that morning, & taken out of service for ever in the afternoon. Why?

[Dan O'meara]

Dont forget the dent in the chrome trim.
Dont forget that the AR15 was placed into service in that morning, & taken out of service for ever in the afternoon. Why?

Neither of these things is evidence the AR-15 was fired, let alone shot JFK.
You don't seem to understand the concept of evidence.
The dent in the chrome and the crack in the windscreen were most probably caused by the bullet that fragmented after hitting JFK's head. Fragments of this bullet peppered the front of the limo and were described by Kellerman as a "flurry" of shots entering the limo.
The dent in the chrome is NOT evidence the AR-15 was fired.

As for the AR-15 being taken in and out of service - if that happened, so what?
This is not evidence the AR-15 was fired?

You're interpretation of these things is not evidence. I don't think you understand that.
There is not a single scrap of evidence the AR-15 was fired that day.
Not a single scrap of evidence to uphold your theory.
How can a theory even exist when there is not a single scrap of evidence to support it?

And what is your credible explanation that not a single witness reported it? You never seem to answer this question.
There must have been dozens of people in a position to see or hear such a thing, some only a few inches away from where it was supposed to have happened.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Neither of these things is evidence the AR-15 was fired, let alone shot JFK.
You don't seem to understand the concept of evidence.
The dent in the chrome and the crack in the windscreen were most probably caused by the bullet that fragmented after hitting JFK's head. Fragments of this bullet peppered the front of the limo and were described by Kellerman as a "flurry" of shots entering the limo.
The dent in the chrome is NOT evidence the AR-15 was fired.

As for the AR-15 being taken in and out of service - if that happened, so what?
This is not evidence the AR-15 was fired?

You're interpretation of these things is not evidence. I don't think you understand that.
There is not a single scrap of evidence the AR-15 was fired that day.
Not a single scrap of evidence to uphold your theory.
How can a theory even exist when there is not a single scrap of evidence to support it?

And what is your credible explanation that not a single witness reported it? You never seem to answer this question.
There must have been dozens of people in a position to see or hear such a thing, some only a few inches away from where it was supposed to have happened.

The dent in the chrome is the key.
It is obvious to me (hence it is evidence to me) that a hollowpoint slug from the AR15 made it.
Fragments could not make that dent (dent too big).
A carcarno could not make that dent (dent too small).
The slug that made the dent probly annihilated into very small splatter, alltho there might have been a largish central remnant (Hargis said that something hit his fender).

Re the cracked windshield, yes, the remnant AR15 slug at Z313 cracked the windshield (slug not found)(probly bounced into street)(Hargis said that something hit his fender).

Anyhow, what the whole jfk saga needs most today is bullet tests on similar chrome trims, to replicate that dent.
These would prove that the AR15 made that dent.
Then it would be evidence to u.
But, it is already evidence to me, koz i am smarter.
And, much of what u have said is evidence to u is clearly wrong to me & is not evidence to me (talking about much of your other stuff here).

I wonder what happened to the AR15. When & how was it disposed of? Where is it today?
If i had the AR15 i would make a facsimile trophy jfk head & mount it over the AR15 over my fireplace.

Translated to behind the fence. There is no hard evidence for a sniper behind the fence.
The witness that saw smoke, the witness that saw a shooter shoot, none of that is hard evidence.
The supposed photo of smoke would be hard evidence, but it aint smoke, the supposed photo of the head of a shooter would be hard evidence, but it aint a head (& even if it were a head it would not necessarily prove that the head fired a rifle).
And all of your supposed wound evidence that there was a shot from the front or sides is complete krapp.

[Royell Storing]

The dent in the chrome is the key.
It is obvious to me (hence it is evidence to me) that a hollowpoint slug from the AR15 made it.
Fragments could not make that dent (dent too big).
A carcarno could not make that dent (dent too small).
The slug that made the dent probly annihilated into very small splatter, alltho there might have been a largish central remnant (Hargis said that something hit his fender).

Re the cracked windshield, yes, the remnant AR15 slug at Z313 cracked the windshield (slug not found)(probly bounced into street)(Hargis said that something hit his fender).

Anyhow, what the whole jfk saga needs most today is bullet tests on similar chrome trims, to replicate that dent.
These would prove that the AR15 made that dent.
Then it would be evidence to u.
But, it is already evidence to me, koz i am smarter.
And, much of what u have said is evidence to u is clearly wrong to me & is not evidence to me (talking about much of your other stuff here).

I wonder what happened to the AR15. When & how was it disposed of? Where is it today?
If i had the AR15 i would make a facsimile trophy jfk head & mount it over the AR15 over my fireplace.

Translated to behind the fence. There is no hard evidence for a sniper behind the fence.
The witness that saw smoke, the witness that saw a shooter shoot, none of that is hard evidence.
The supposed photo of smoke would be hard evidence, but it aint smoke, the supposed photo of the head of a shooter would be hard evidence, but it aint a head (& even if it were a head it would not necessarily prove that the head fired a rifle).
And all of your supposed wound evidence that there was a shot from the front or sides is complete krapp.

  You got a serious issue with getting a shot UNDER that steel support beam and then striking that chrome strip at the TOP of the car. And remember, the Limo is traveling Downhill. Personally, if you believe that the Head Explosion was the result of the AR-15, then you need to also expect severe damage to a flimsy chrome strip vs a mere Ding.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

  You got a serious issue with getting a shot UNDER that steel support beam and then striking that chrome strip at the TOP of the car. And remember, the Limo is traveling Downhill. Personally, if you believe that the Head Explosion was the result of the AR-15, then you need to also expect severe damage to a flimsy chrome strip vs a mere Ding.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.88.html

Here is my latest drawing of the Z313 AR15 shot cracking the windshield.
As shown Hickey's shot was at 4 deg relative to Elm St (Elm St is shown level in the drawing for simplicity)(the grade of Elms St was actually about 3.3 deg [needs checking]). The (small hollow point)(ie what was left of it) slug veered in JFK's head & cracked the windshield.
As shown Oswald's fake shot-3 (Oswald fired only 2 shots) would have been at 12 deg relative to Elm St.  The large remnant FMJ slug would have to have veered a long way to crack the windshield (ie impossible) -- & the large (tumbling) slug would have made a giant hole through the windshield (but there was no hole)(just a crack).