From Behind the Fence

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

A sniper behind the fence is & was an impossibility.
He she would have been seen as per frame below. And would have been seen by Bowers up in the railway control room. And by Zapruder & Sitzman.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

99% of what Holland said was krapp.
If u look at all of the pix in Dealey, & all of the footages, u will see that Holland & Co are still on the TUP many minutes after the shots.
So, Holland did not run to the fence after the shots.
Holland hizself says that there were 40 or 50 persons in the carpark when he was looking around in the carpark. So, the footprints & muddy prints etc could have been made after the shots.
Re the supposed smoke, the AR15 would have made a bit of smoke i suppose (4 or 5 shots), & it was just right of the trees from Holland's view.


https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=142357;topic=2833.80

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Clemon Johnson standing on the underpass saw puffs of smoke on Elm St, not near the picket fence.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

As can be seen in Moorman's polaroid there is no shooter at the fence.
And we know that there was no outshoot on the lhs of JFK's head.

[Fergus O'Brien]

Clemon Johnson standing on the underpass saw puffs of smoke on Elm St, not near the picket fence.

let me see if i understand what you are saying here . it seems you cite clem johnson as proof that simmons , dodd and holland saw no smoke under the bushes . yet johnson by his own admission in the article you provided stated that he was looking at jfk and his limo which was in the center lane of elm and that to quote johnson I DIDNT HARDLY LOOK UP UNTIL HE (jfk) WAS GONE , I WASNT LOOKING UP AT THESE BUSHES .

so with all due respect how does a man who by his own admission did not even look in the area in question until after jfk was no longer in his sight dispute the 3 men who said they did look that way and saw smoke at the bushes ? .

in regard the images you show of two men behind the fence now please correct me if i am wrong now but wasnt that footage from mark lanes documentary rush to judgement ? . wasnt that some 3 years after the assassination ? . if so were the trees and bushes seen in 1966 in the same condition as they were in 1963 ? IE had they been trimmed / cut back etc ?. looking at the image of holland up on the over pass certainly from that vantage point the bushes were still quite thick and trees etc over hung . none of these people were expecting shots to be fired , they were there to see jfk and jackie , so they would not be looking up at the fence line or at buildings .

and again to say what a person said is crap is not a valid argument , if a person was 100% wrong and all evidence contradicts them so be it , if every other witness 100% contradicts them so be it . but we need some proof here . we know holland (and im not quoting now ) said along the lines of they pretty much immediately ran around to look behind the fence . he told lane he got to the steam pipe and saw a sea of cars . now we know and you pointed it out i believe that images show these men still on the over pass after the limo had passed beneath the over pass . i dont think for a second that holland and these two other men lied . it was their interpretation of a traumatic event . i believe it was holland that said he immediately ran around to look behind the fence , it was not immediate as the shots rang out but more immediate after jfks limo was out of his sight .

if my memory serves me you are working on a theory , i never do that , i am simply just trying to get at the facts what ever they are . but if you are working on the hickey did it theory well you will look for that which tends to validate your theory .but in my own research of this case i have to say ive seen no proof that hickey did it . in fact i know that atleast 3 law suits came from the hickey did it mortal error theory . and again if my memory serves me the author /publisher settled all 3 law suits , one was from hickey himself was it not ? . now my thinking here would be that surely if they could prove hickey did it that they would have gladly met him in court and shown their proof wouldnt they ? . instead they settled with mr hickey .

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

let me see if i understand what you are saying here . it seems you cite clem johnson as proof that simmons , dodd and holland saw no smoke under the bushes . yet johnson by his own admission in the article you provided stated that he was looking at jfk and his limo which was in the center lane of elm and that to quote johnson I DIDNT HARDLY LOOK UP UNTIL HE (jfk) WAS GONE , I WASNT LOOKING UP AT THESE BUSHES .

so with all due respect how does a man who by his own admission did not even look in the area in question until after jfk was no longer in his sight dispute the 3 men who said they did look that way and saw smoke at the bushes ? .

in regard the images you show of two men behind the fence now please correct me if i am wrong now but wasnt that footage from mark lanes documentary rush to judgement ? . wasnt that some 3 years after the assassination ? . if so were the trees and bushes seen in 1966 in the same condition as they were in 1963 ? IE had they been trimmed / cut back etc ?. looking at the image of holland up on the over pass certainly from that vantage point the bushes were still quite thick and trees etc over hung . none of these people were expecting shots to be fired , they were there to see jfk and jackie , so they would not be looking up at the fence line or at buildings .

and again to say what a person said is crap is not a valid argument , if a person was 100% wrong and all evidence contradicts them so be it , if every other witness 100% contradicts them so be it . but we need some proof here . we know holland (and im not quoting now ) said along the lines of they pretty much immediately ran around to look behind the fence . he told lane he got to the steam pipe and saw a sea of cars . now we know and you pointed it out i believe that images show these men still on the over pass after the limo had passed beneath the over pass . i dont think for a second that holland and these two other men lied . it was their interpretation of a traumatic event . i believe it was holland that said he immediately ran around to look behind the fence , it was not immediate as the shots rang out but more immediate after jfks limo was out of his sight .

if my memory serves me you are working on a theory , i never do that , i am simply just trying to get at the facts what ever they are . but if you are working on the hickey did it theory well you will look for that which tends to validate your theory .but in my own research of this case i have to say ive seen no proof that hickey did it . in fact i know that atleast 3 law suits came from the hickey did it mortal error theory . and again if my memory serves me the author /publisher settled all 3 law suits , one was from hickey himself was it not ? . now my thinking here would be that surely if they could prove hickey did it that they would have gladly met him in court and shown their proof wouldnt they ? . instead they settled with mr hickey .

Johnson went further, he said that the guys that saw smoke at the fence were crazy. But i did not bother to find the exact reference.
Re the shrubbery, i dont know whether the shrubbery had been trimmed back say 3 years later.
Holland & Co were still seen to be on the TUP a long time after the shots, but i dont think that i ever put a number on how long after the shots.
U & me & all have to work on a theory, & then see what fits & what dont fit.
When there are so many facts & contrafacts & factoids it is impossible to do otherwise.
My theory (that Hickey fired the head shot) is i am sure 100% correct.
All of my stuff is 100% correct.

[Royell Storing]

let me see if i understand what you are saying here . it seems you cite clem johnson as proof that simmons , dodd and holland saw no smoke under the bushes . yet johnson by his own admission in the article you provided stated that he was looking at jfk and his limo which was in the center lane of elm and that to quote johnson I DIDNT HARDLY LOOK UP UNTIL HE (jfk) WAS GONE , I WASNT LOOKING UP AT THESE BUSHES .

so with all due respect how does a man who by his own admission did not even look in the area in question until after jfk was no longer in his sight dispute the 3 men who said they did look that way and saw smoke at the bushes ? .

in regard the images you show of two men behind the fence now please correct me if i am wrong now but wasnt that footage from mark lanes documentary rush to judgement ? . wasnt that some 3 years after the assassination ? . if so were the trees and bushes seen in 1966 in the same condition as they were in 1963 ? IE had they been trimmed / cut back etc ?. looking at the image of holland up on the over pass certainly from that vantage point the bushes were still quite thick and trees etc over hung . none of these people were expecting shots to be fired , they were there to see jfk and jackie , so they would not be looking up at the fence line or at buildings .

and again to say what a person said is crap is not a valid argument , if a person was 100% wrong and all evidence contradicts them so be it , if every other witness 100% contradicts them so be it . but we need some proof here . we know holland (and im not quoting now ) said along the lines of they pretty much immediately ran around to look behind the fence . he told lane he got to the steam pipe and saw a sea of cars . now we know and you pointed it out i believe that images show these men still on the over pass after the limo had passed beneath the over pass . i dont think for a second that holland and these two other men lied . it was their interpretation of a traumatic event . i believe it was holland that said he immediately ran around to look behind the fence , it was not immediate as the shots rang out but more immediate after jfks limo was out of his sight .

if my memory serves me you are working on a theory , i never do that , i am simply just trying to get at the facts what ever they are . but if you are working on the hickey did it theory well you will look for that which tends to validate your theory .but in my own research of this case i have to say ive seen no proof that hickey did it . in fact i know that atleast 3 law suits came from the hickey did it mortal error theory . and again if my memory serves me the author /publisher settled all 3 law suits , one was from hickey himself was it not ? . now my thinking here would be that surely if they could prove hickey did it that they would have gladly met him in court and shown their proof wouldnt they ? . instead they settled with mr hickey .

            Your point is the same one I often make. The eyewitnesses with Elevated viewing positions have the best overall view of Dealey Plaza. They are looking downward onto Elm St and therefore see much more than eyewitnesses at ground level on Elm St. People in everyday life seldom look Upward. Their vision seldom raising higher than roughly 10 feet high off the ground. Ground level eyewitnesses were fixated on the JFK Limo traveling down Elm St. These eyewitnesses were like a Pirate peering through an eye glass or someone on a submarine looking through a periscope. Very restricted vision. The higher ground vision of those on the Triple Underpass and Lee Bowers in the Railroad Tower is far superior. The WC attorney never asked Bowers, but I would bet that a pair of binoculars is standard equipment inside that Railroad Tower. Bowers needing to see the Top of the Triple Underpass would mandate a pair of binoculars being inside that tower to aid his vision for great distances such as this. I believe he probably used binoculars on 11/22/63. This would make his observations prior to the shooting all the more valuable/precise.

[Fergus O'Brien]

johnson had an opinion about these men and that is his right , but that is proof of nothing . again by his own admission he was not looking where simmons , dodd and holland said they looked until after jfk and his limo were out of his sight . so he really cant be used to contradict them .

well i think we need to know if the shrubbery was cut back at all between november 1963 and when mark lane and holland were there  some 3 years later . if they were not cut back they should have grown quite a bit in 3 years i would imagine .perhaps another poster or duncan has information on this and can chime in and let us know . i do know that holland also stood behind the fence alone while another  picture was taken from across the street , if you will in the area where mary moormon stood .upon zooming in he could be seen all be it not clearly . and im sure the camera used was of a better quality than the cameras used that tragic day .

i agree holland did  not immediately run around to look behind the fence , i am sure he was not being dishonest about that . more that the nature of events caused him to believe he had ran around the fence sooner than he did . but that could have been dealt with by the commission in order to ascertain just how long it was before he left where he stood .

i have no problem with anyone who may have a theory as long as it is merited and supported by evidence .

if your theory re hickey is 100% correct with all due respect then it should have iron clad proof to back it up .ive yet to see anyone who goes alone with the hickey did it theory come anywhere near to proving it . not even the author who came up with it and the publisher who published it . if they did have proof why would they not take that to a court of law to win the law suits ? . all of that said if anyone has a valid theory and they have evidence or even proof in support of it i am only too willing to look at it .i have seen a lot of your work on this site regarding the hickey theory or regarding other aspects of the case and as i have said i just feel i am asking valid questions and some times posting relevant information , and am in no way meaning any disrespect to you . i value all info posted on this site about this case even if i may not always agree with it . thanks for your reply .