Hickey might have fired his AR15 -- members survey.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I reckon that Hickey fired an accidental auto burst of 4 or 5 or 6 shots with his AR15, & that the last shot hit jfk in the head at Z313, & (say) the first shot bloodied Tague. 

I am wondering which members agree that .....

1. Hickey fired at least one shot.

2. Hickey fired the fatal shot at Z313.

Anyone not agreeing with (1) or (2) need not answer -- a no answer is a no vote -- but comments & insults are welcome.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

While Donahue was onto something, in that the official explanation for the head wounds made little sense, he was quite incorrect to blame Hickey for the shot. Dave Powers sat in the jump seat in front of Hickey. He made numerous statements supporting a conspiracy. And yet he was adamant that no shot was fired from within inches of his head. I tend to trust him on this. 

There's also a problem with the Bronson film, which shows Hickey still sitting at the time of the head shot. 

[Larry Hancock]

No insult but this is just one of many oldies that deserves to be buried - photos and eye witnesses speak against it conclusively.  The author of the book presenting it lost a legal action over it.  A more recent TV program involved individuals who were thoroughly briefed on the problems by my friend Stu Wexler and essentially responded that they didn't care, it made a great show and they had a contract to produce it so too bad. 

Actually the element of the book speaking to fragmentation and X ray patterns was worth considering, its just too bad it had to be partnered with a truly bogus shooting scenario.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

44 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

While Donahue was onto something, in that the official explanation for the head wounds made little sense, he was quite incorrect to blame Hickey for the shot. Dave Powers sat in the jump seat in front of Hickey. He made numerous statements supporting a conspiracy. And yet he was adamant that no shot was fired from within inches of his head. I tend to trust him on this. 

There's also a problem with the Bronson film, which shows Hickey still sitting at the time of the head shot. 

Powers never denied that Hickey fired -- Powers merely blurted a true-ism -- Powers said that Powers would have heard.

The Bronson film is an amazing saga. The 2017 copy of frames show a darkish blobbish shape (AR15) angling up & forward at about 50 deg from Hickey half sitting half standing on 2 leather cases in the back seat. The AR15 is half actual, half creation (artifact). If the half creation part did not exist then we would not know that the AR15 was there.

And then along comes the superior 2019 copy. Here the blobs have gone, the half creation has gone. There is no AR15. But, we know from the 2017 inferior copy that there is an AR15 in there somewhere. So, we look, & we look, &, yes, we see the AR15 in the 2019 frame. But, now, it is not angling up at about 50 deg, it is a triangular area of swish, ie an AR15 swinging quickly, either up or down.  Were it not for the inferior 2017 copy i would never in a million years have spotted the swishing AR15 in the superior 2019 copy. 

So, was the swish up or down?  Close examination of films shows that the frame in question was say 4 frames after Z313. Hickey fired at say Z297 when he stumbled forward when Kinney braked to avoid turning Hill into roadkill, so, Hickey had from Z297 to Z317 to get his bum back on the leather cases, 20 Zapruder frames, not a problem.

At Z317, was the AR15 swishing up or down? I think up, koz it was swishing very fast, but probably not important.

Thank god for the poor 2017 copy.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Pat Speer]

23 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Powers never denied that Hickey fired -- Powers merely blurted a true-ism -- Powers said that Powers would have heard.

The Bronson film is an amazing saga. The 2017 copy of frames show a darkish blobbish shape (AR15) angling up & forward at about 50 deg from Hickey half sitting half standing on 2 leather cases in the back seat. The AR15 is half actual, half creation (artifact). If the half creation part did not exist then we would not know that the AR15 was there.

And then along comes the superior 2019 copy. Here the blobs have gone, the half creation has gone. There is no AR15. But, we know from the 2017 inferior copy that there is an AR15 in there somewhere. So, we look, & we look, &, yes, we see the AR15 in the 2019 frame. But, now, it is not angling up at about 50 deg, it is a triangular area of swish, ie an AR15 swinging quickly, either up or down.  Were it not for the inferior 2017 copy i would never in a million years have spotted the swishing AR15 in the superior 2019 copy. 

So, was the swish up or down?  Close examination of films shows that the frame in question was say 4 frames after Z313. Hickey fired at say Z297 when he stumbled forward when Kinney braked to avoid turning Hill into roadkill, so, Hickey had from Z297 to Z317 to get his bum back on the leather cases, 20 Zapruder frames, not a problem.

At Z317, was the AR15 swishing up or down? I think up, koz it was swishing very fast, but probably not important.

Thank god for the poor 2017 copy.

Uh, no. The theory has been totally debunked. The Bible for the theory, Mortal Error, presented an illustration demonstrating that for Hickey to have shot Kennedy he would have to have been standing. The Bronson film proves he wasn't standing.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

On 8/1/2022 at 7:55 AM, Larry Hancock said:

No insult but this is just one of many oldies that deserves to be buried - photos and eye witnesses speak against it conclusively.  The author of the book presenting it lost a legal action over it.  A more recent TV program involved individuals who were thoroughly briefed on the problems by my friend Stu Wexler and essentially responded that they didn't care, it made a great show and they had a contract to produce it so too bad. 

Actually the element of the book speaking to fragmentation and X ray patterns was worth considering, its just too bad it had to be partnered with a truly bogus shooting scenario.

I purchased Mortal Error, & The Smoking Gun. Great reading. I was amazed that in both books their brains were stuck – stuck on their being only one shot fired by Hickey – however we all know that JFK's brain was struck not stuck.

But joking aside – there is no problem with Hickey holding the AR15 high enough to clear the windshield of Queen Mary.

The main (possible) problem that i see is that the 2^nd last shot managed to clear over the top of the central divider in the jfklimo, yet it had to hit low down on the chrome trim on the top of the windshield (ie to make the famous bullet mark seen in photos). I suspect that the slug had to slightly graze the divider, which would have made a smear. But this problem goes away if Hickey is high enough. Perhaps my wording is bad – i should have said that the problem re clearing the windshield of Queen Mary is not as great as the problem of clearing the divider in the jfklimo.

The other problem that i see is that the remnant slug from the headshot had to veer say 6 deg to then crack the windshield just left of the rear vision mirror. Now, 6 deg is doable for a plain slug, but it’s a big ask for a hollow point, i mean in the short distance while in JFK's brain. But, i did find ballistics that showed that a hollow point can veer a long way in jelly if it firstly hits an angled surface, & JFK's skull was such a surface. Problem solved.

The hospital reeked of gunpowder. Naturally – of course – because Hickey had i think 5 stinking spent casings in his pocket.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Uh, no. The theory has been totally debunked. The Bible for the theory, Mortal Error, presented an illustration demonstrating that for Hickey to have shot Kennedy he would have to have been standing. The Bronson film proves he wasn't standing.

Yes, if u can show me in Bronson that Hickey is sitting at Z313 then that would prove that Hickey did not fire at Z313. The drawing shows the situation nicely.

Notice that clearing over the jfk-divider is a problem, ie to make the bullet mark on the chrome trim above the mirror on the jfklimo.

The drawing shows the bullet clearing the windshield by 100 mm -- the bullet had to clear by only 1mm.

The drawing shows Hickey standing on the seat -- no he didnt have to stand on the seat.

I forget my calculations -- but the AR15 had to be only say 75 mm higher than the windshield -- not a problem for the headshot.

A minor point -- Donahue did not draw that drawing to show that Hickey could clear the windshield -- he drew that drawing to illustrate his wordage re the angle of the bullet in jfk's skull. By drawing the bullet traject well above the windshield i suggest that that made his theory more difficult. He could have drawn the traject grazing the windshield, but he preferred his (angle) theory to have to clear a higher bar. No, had he drawn that drawing to see if the headshot was possible he would have drawn it grazing the windshield, not clearing it by 100 mm.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Yes, if u can show me in Bronson that Hickey is sitting at Z313 then that would prove that Hickey did not fire at Z313. The drawing shows the situation nicely.

Notice that clearing over the jfk-divider is a problem, ie to make the bullet mark on the chrome trim above the mirror on the jfklimo.

The drawing shows the bullet clearing the windshield by 100 mm -- the bullet had to clear by only 1mm.

The drawing shows Hickey standing on the seat -- no he didnt have to stand on the seat.

I forget my calculations -- but the AR15 had to be only say 75 mm higher than the windshield -- not a problem for the headshot.

A minor point -- Donaghue did not draw that drawing to show that Hickey could clear the windshield -- he drew that drawing to illustrate his wordage re the angle of the bullet in jfk's skull. By drawing the bullet traject well above the windshield i suggest that that made his theory more difficult. He could have drawn the traject grazing the windshield, but he preferred his (angle) theory to have to clear a higher bar. No, had he drawn that drawing to see if the headshot was possible he would have drawn it grazing the windshield, not clearing it by 100 mm.

OK, you're just playing games. The drawing demonstrated the downward angle of the bullet into the skull, according to Donahue. Such an angle could only have been accomplished if Hickey was standing up. By superimposing Donahue's drawing onto the Bronson film, I have shown that Hickey would have to have been much higher up in the Bronson film, in relation to Brehm, than is shown in the film, for him to have fired the fatal shot, as purported.

The Hickey theory is dead, long dead, and I can't understand why you would want to revive it.  

[Micah Mileto]

It's stuff like this which makes me seriously worry that one day the government is going to try saying "the official story is true, but the single bullet theory isn't true". I suppose that one could also try arguing that Oswald tried to reduce the noise and velocity of his first shot by removing some of the powder from the first round in the chamber - in which case, maybe a low-speed 6.5 slug fired from a modified shell could've - hypothetically - entered Kennedy's back, continued on a path that was not necessarily straight, barely exiting exited the throat, leaving a tiny exit wound, the round falling into the Limousine only to be subsequently lost or "innocently" stolen or planted somewhere else for a reason other than covering up multiple shooters. Then perhaps somebody could try arguing the 6.5 fragments reportedly found in the Limousine were from Connally, not the headshot.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Vince Palamara]

The three most obscene theories I have heard:

 

1) Jackie did it/ was involved

2) Greer shot JFK

3) Hickey shot JFK

The most popular dumb theories:

1) Greer shot JFK

2) Hickey shot JFK

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

OK, you're just playing games. The drawing demonstrated the downward angle of the bullet into the skull, according to Donahue. Such an angle could only have been accomplished if Hickey was standing up. By superimposing Donahue's drawing onto the Bronson film, I have shown that Hickey would have to have been much higher up in the Bronson film, in relation to Brehm, than is shown in the film, for him to have fired the fatal shot, as purported.

The Hickey theory is dead, long dead, and I can't understand why you would want to revive it.  

The Bronson film is not needed. Superimposing the drawing on the Bronson film is not needed. All we need is the drawing. And, by drawing Hickey standing in the back of Queen Mary we would see that he would have to hold the AR15 at a certain elevation relative to his body (& relative to the windshield). The question then boils down to whether that elevation for the AR15 is doable. And it is. By memory i calculated that the AR15 had to be 75 mm (3") above the windshield. But, even if 100 mm or 125 mm, its doable.

If i wanted to i could have gained say 25 mm (1") by virtue of Queen Mary lurching forward while braking, due to its own mass, & the mass of 9 big guys. Lurching would lower the nose, & raise the rear, giving the AR15 a better view of JFK's head. Hell, tests might show a gain of 50 mm (2"), or more.

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

The Bronson film is not needed. Superimposing the drawing on the Bronson film is not needed. All we need is the drawing. And, by drawing Hickey standing in the back of Queen Mary we would see that he would have to hold the AR15 at a certain elevation relative to his body (& relative to the windshield). The question then boils down to whether that elevation for the AR15 is doable. And it is. By memory i calculated that the AR15 had to be 75 mm (3") above the windshield. But, even if 100 mm or 125 mm, its doable.

If i wanted to i could have gained say 25 mm (1") by virtue of Queen Mary lurching forward while braking, due to its own mass, & the mass of 9 big guys. Lurching would lower the nose, & raise the rear, giving the AR15 a better view of JFK's head. Hell, tests might show a gain of 50 mm (2"), or more.

So do it. Create a lateral view of the shooting showing how Hickey could have shot Kennedy without standing up. And then an overhead view of the shooting showing the location of the rifle in relation to the passengers of the Queen Mary. 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

It's stuff like this which makes me seriously worry that one day the government is going to try saying "the official story is true, but the single bullet theory isn't true". I suppose that one could also try arguing that Oswald tried to reduce the noise and velocity of his first shot by removing some of the powder from the first round in the chamber - in which case, maybe a low-speed 6.5 slug fired from a modified shell could've - hypothetically - entered Kennedy's back and only barely exited his throat, leaving a tiny exit wound, the round falling into the Limousine only to be subsequently lost or "innocently" stolen or planted somewhere else for a reason other than covering up multiple shooters. Then perhaps somebody could try arguing the 6.5 fragments reportedly found in the Limousine were from Connally, not the headshot.

The 2 main fragments in the jfklimo were from Oswald's first shot that ricocheted offa the overhead signal arm at say (pseudo) Z113. Many thanx to Holland for coming up with a ricochet theory, offa the signal arm, however he gets the details wrong.

The 2 main fragments were not from Oswald's 2nd shot at Z218 (the magic bullet). And they were not from Hickey's auto burst. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

30 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

The three most obscene theories I have heard:

 

1) Jackie did it/ was involved

2) Greer shot JFK

3) Hickey shot JFK

The most popular dumb theories:

1) Greer shot JFK

2) Hickey shot JFK

That is what this survey is about -- i want to know how popular the Hickey theories are. I had seen a mention that 27% of jfkians reckon that Hickey fired at least one shot. But, such Hickeyists apparently dont bother to spend much time on forums. I might have to wait a long while to find another Hickeyist -- we will see.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Vince Palamara]

Just now, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

That is what this survey is about -- i want to know how popular the Hickey theories are. I had seen a mention that 27% of jfkians reckon that Hickey fired at least one shot. But, such Hickeyists apparently dont bother to mix words with non-realists.

I am inundated weekly with inquiries from strangers about Greer shooting JFK and Hickey shooting JFK. These theories are very popular with non-researchers. I suppose the "LBJ did it" theory would be third.