Mike Williams

Thom is 100% correct. In the Marines Drill Instructors do not teach the recruits marksmanship. That is the job of the PMI, Primary marksmanship Instuctor. When qualifying 3 people maintain the shooters score. The shooter himself, the PMI, and the person pulling the targets in the Butz. There is no communication between the butz and firing line, and all 3 scores have to match. IOW there is no cheating. The Marine Corp basic doctrine is that every man is a rifle man first. The idea of pushing through someone who was substandard is ridiculous. They simply provide further training until the person masters the skill. I love it when people show their ignorance by bringing up Delgado. We know that the qualification Delgado is referencing is the one in California in which Oswald scores a 191. Do you know what Delgado scored on that same Qual? 192.........some superior shot huh? Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot.

Only a few slight issues with that. First there was no hole in the windshield, there was nothing but a chip, from the inside, with lead on it. Now this lead should give us a clue about other things. For those that think this was a direct hit of a missed bullet, you would have to explain what kind of firearm did this! There is a very good reason that bullets have a copper jacket, This chip had no copper, just lead. The bullet hit something else first.

No mas! Not enough mass = not enough energy to do the damage Kerb concrete has higher compressive strength and is more compact Than shuttered concrete . If the upper split after hitting the chrome how did it Elevate itself over the windscreen frame. If a fragment hit the chrome it's even less Likely an even smaller piece could carry enough energy to actually damage the kerb. Kerb and pedestrian concrete /slabs are more impact/ damage resistant as Indicated by the drain cover. Finer more compact grains of the right size to interlock the Portland Cement a bit like a fractal mass. Then simply do the math and prove your case. Ive done it already and there is plenty of mass allowable and plenty of remining velocity. Lets not go with what we think, lets do the work and prove the point.

Robin is correct, IF he was wounded it was on the right cheek. Over the years and in differnet videos he points to different cheeks at different times....... At any rate. The vast majority of witnesses recount 3 shots, so where the idea comes from that more than 3 were fired is odd at best. I do realize some talk about silencers, etc etc, however this really just shows what a fundemental error they make in evaluating the ballistic evidence. I have posted several times, the most likely occurance of Tague getting wounded was the 3rd shot, and from a fragment of that third shot striking the chorme, etc. Even a very small fragment would retain the velocity needed.

Hi Mike. This article seems to give a reasonable explanation to a debated question. I always found the timing a problem. It makes more sense that Ruby came down the ramp and poor Vaughn got snookered. Thank you Tom, I will pass your thanks on to Bill Brown who wrote this article. Thank You very much for your feedback and I hope you enjoy the site.

Well Jim, since you insist on re-posting things that show your ignorance of the subject, why not tell us just where I went wrong? Are you ever going to post the work that refutes me?

I just posted a new article discussing the problems with the testimony of Nelson Delgado. Delgado is one of the favorites that the conspiracy buffs like to quote in regard to the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald. http://www.jfkballistics.com/woes_delgado.html

Ignore, I figured as much. I have to say, I find it heart breaking that anyone who follows the beliefs of Harris would put me on ignore. I find it heart breaking that someone who does not understand that the very change in static to dynamic condition is precisely what Pascal is addressing. After all, it is the influence of pressure (dynamic), from an outside source, on liquid (in a static condition). But one has to wonder why would you think that I would be afraid to post in another thread? I have posted this stuff many times, and not one time has it ever been refuted. It also goes to note that for all your yammering, you have yet to refute it, you just continue to dance and gas bag along. Speaking of gas as a fundamental you may want to research a few laws that continue to provide evidence of your ignorance. Boyle's Law, Gay-Lussac's Law, and Charles' Law might be a good beginning, but first I suggest you brush up on high school physics. This will of course add to your understanding and comprehension of energy, momentum, and force. Which you have clearly shown you lack. As for your complaint, I am not off topic at all. As far as I can tell this topic is about Robert Harris and his ridiculous conclusions, which you support, in regard to a second head shot based on the z film. I refute your beliefs and Harris beliefs, and Pascals Law proves that you are incorrect. How is this off topic? How is this disruptive? I am right on topic, and still addressing your claims of a second head shot. I believe that you only find this disruptive, because you and your pseudo education are being taken to school on things you obviously know nothing about. ======================== Disruptive behavior 1: === Person appears not even able to handle basic mathematics with calculation for grains used in the Kinetic Energy Calculation example above. Such extreme ignorance show zero ability to continue any discussion and the basic issue appears to be troublemaking, providing intentional disruption. A online converter calculator was even including in the listing, making it nearly impossible to screw it up. Yet the person screwed it up: "You might want to recalibrate lol." obviously due to his comment. Mike Williams, on 03 June 2011 - 03:53 PM, said: You might want to recalibrate lol. Here is another hint. A bullet weight if one grain is 1/7000th of a pound. An online calculator: http://www.unitconve...conversion.html Another online calculator: http://www.easysurf.cc/cnver8.htm The conversion factor is 70 Gr = 0.01 lb, which is consistent with all the conversions used above in the Kinetic Energy Balance Equation. "70 Gr Bullet" was selected because that is a typical 222/223 caliber bullet weight, so fits the Grassy Knoll and XP-100 type pistol. ======= Disruptive behavior 2: http://karws.gso.uri...high-speed.html Source: Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory, County of Bexar, San Antonio, Texas (from his Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1985) Reference clearly states that Bullet effects on head pressure result on distribution of positive and negative pressures within the skull----meaning there is no a Pascal pressure distribution. Complaint: Total failure to be able to comprehind known experts in the field of Ballistics and Gunshot wounds. Net result is the person wants to cause disruption and toss out constant nonsense. =========== Disruptive Behavior 3: Failure to be inclusing of the formation of gases due to gunshot bullet dynamic effects on heating: http://books.google....epage&q&f=false ============ Disruptive Bahavior 4: Failure to use the defintion for Pascal that requires the system to be "at rest," which means in a "static equilibrium" state with no flow or wave energy in the medium. Person shows a consistent Total failure to know the well established scientic language criteria to use Pascal's, or even to understand the basics of physics. Leaving one to think the only reason to keep up his repeating is absolute ignorance, or that of constant troublemaking. Either is not acceptable and disruptive to the thread's discussion via proper methods. These are attacks on the ability to have decent conversations using proper science application. http://www.britannic...scals-principle Pascal’s principle, also called Pascal’s Law, in fluid (gas or liquid) mechanics, statement that in a fluid at rest in a closed container a pressure change in one part is transmitted without loss to every portion of the fluid and to the walls of the container. The principle was first enunciated by the French scientist Blaise Pascal. ============== IMHO Jim, Please stop. You continue to make yourself look foolish, and lose credibility by the minute. It is, and has been readily apparent to everyone, that you have no clue what you are talking about. You have made this more than evident Jim, and yet, you continue rambling on.

A new article by Bill Brown. http://www.jfkballistics.com/rubybasement.html

Ignore, I figured as much. I have to say, I find it heart breaking that anyone who follows the beliefs of Harris would put me on ignore. I find it heart breaking that someone who does not understand that the very change in static to dynamic condition is precisely what Pascal is addressing. After all, it is the influence of pressure (dynamic), from an outside source, on liquid (in a static condition). But one has to wonder why would you think that I would be afraid to post in another thread? I have posted this stuff many times, and not one time has it ever been refuted. It also goes to note that for all your yammering, you have yet to refute it, you just continue to dance and gas bag along. Speaking of gas as a fundamental you may want to research a few laws that continue to provide evidence of your ignorance. Boyle's Law, Gay-Lussac's Law, and Charles' Law might be a good beginning, but first I suggest you brush up on high school physics. This will of course add to your understanding and comprehension of energy, momentum, and force. Which you have clearly shown you lack. As for your complaint, I am not off topic at all. As far as I can tell this topic is about Robert Harris and his ridiculous conclusions, which you support, in regard to a second head shot based on the z film. I refute your beliefs and Harris beliefs, and Pascals Law proves that you are incorrect. How is this off topic? How is this disruptive? I am right on topic, and still addressing your claims of a second head shot. I believe that you only find this disruptive, because you and your pseudo education are being taken to school on things you obviously know nothing about.

Jim, You might want to recalibrate lol. Here is another hint. A bullet weight if one grain is 1/7000th of a pound. Clearly you could save on energy costs in winter by talking rather than running the furnace. In the physical sciences, Pascal's law or the Principle of transmission of fluid-pressure states that "pressure exerted anywhere in a confined incompressible fluid is transmitted equally in all directions throughout the fluid such that the pressure ratio (initial difference) remains the same."[1] \Delta P =\rho g (\Delta h)\, where ΔP is the hydrostatic pressure (given in pascals in the SI system), or the difference in pressure at two points within a fluid column, due to the weight of the fluid; ρ is the fluid density (in kilograms per cubic meter in the SI system); g is acceleration due to gravity (normally using the sea level acceleration due to Earth's gravity in metres per second squared); Δh is the height of fluid above the point of measurement, or the difference in elevation between the two points within the fluid column (in metres in SI). The intuitive explanation of this formula is that the change in pressure between two elevations is due to the weight of the fluid between the elevations. Note that the variation with height does not depend on any additional pressures. Therefore Pascal's law can be interpreted as saying that any change in pressure applied at any given point of the fluid is transmitted undiminished throughout the fluid. Equation: (P1)(V1) = (P2)(V2) Pascals law is a matter of how pressure is transmitted through fluid, Jim, It has nothing at all to do with any of the gibberish you have posted. Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Colby are dead on the money. Additionally the equation you posted is almost humerus in its very nature in discussing this subject. Jim, stop while you are ahead, your continued ramblings only further indicate that you do not posses the education to broach such a subject.

Mike, I too am of the opinion that there was only one shot. If I may ask , what do you think accounts for Kennedy's backward movement? Best, Daniel Daniel, I could only speculate. It is rather clear that a bullet can not do this. See the references above. It is just as clear that the jet effect is only so much horse poo. I should explain that one I suppose. Blood, being a fluid, and brain matter being a semi fluid, have two unique qualities, they do not compress to any significant degree. Having said that, since they do not compress significantly, they can not expand significantly. In other words, rapid expansion of fluid to cause a jet effect is impossible merely because the fluid itself does not possess the expansion needed to accomplish this. Gas on the other hand does have the ability to expand rapidly. Think dynamite. Now, from personal experience I can tell you that a person struck in the head with a bullet can do some unpredictable things. Run, Jump, or, at times, just fall straight down. My best guess Daniel is a muscular reaction. This seems to be indicated in many ways, but this to me seems the most likely scenario. Mike

Hi Mike. Yes, this is the text of an Official Justice Department Document. There is literally no doubt as to its authenticity. This is the memorandum of the TAPED telephonic conversation between LBJ and Hoover. It received NO news coverage whatsoever. When the LBJ tapes were finally declassified and made available on the internet--it was as if this was insignificant. Amazing. Greg, I would like to read more about his, are there threads here on it? This is pretty intriguing stuff. I don't know if there are threads on that subject here, Mike. However, way back in 2000 I did a presentation on it for JFK LANCER -- I think I was the first one to point it out at a conference (maybe not). I also sent copies of the text of the actual conversation, copies of the audio tape itself, and copies of the above memorandum to EVERY NEWS SERVICE of which I was aware (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, UPI, C-SPAN) -- and guess what? I received not even a reply. Keep in mind, I did not claim it was definitive proof of anything. I purposely made sure I did not come across as a "loon" -- I simply made the information available. Not a peep from them...nothing. Then, finally, C-SPAN replied and thanked me. They have done a good job archiving, but that's it. Greg, You know my position on this case. There are Few CT's that I respect as much as I do you. I can only hold this in thought, and look further into it. Thank you for showing this to me.

Pascal Law revolves around pressure in fluid Jim. Bob failed to prove this issue as miserably as you have failed to show my calculations wrong. So, are you going to prove yourself and Harris correct, and prove me wrong with the actual calculations needed anytime soon? Here is a small hint for you. A .50 caliber BMG which has massive bullet size (700g) and incredible FPE, only moves a 200+ pound object 2.5 inches even when the bullet remains in the target. I note you completely dodge my remarks of Harris's work. I figured you would. You dodged them as handily as you dodged proving me wrong. You Jim, have proven to be a wind bag, but there is hope, I ask yet again for you to show that I am incorrect.

Hi Mike. Yes, this is the text of an Official Justice Department Document. There is literally no doubt as to its authenticity. This is the memorandum of the TAPED telephonic conversation between LBJ and Hoover. It received NO news coverage whatsoever. When the LBJ tapes were finally declassified and made available on the internet--it was as if this was insignificant. Amazing. Greg, I would like to read more about his, are there threads here on it? This is pretty intriguing stuff.

Jim, I also should add this as it pertains. Is this the same Robert Harris who claims to have been studying the assassination for decades, and YET: 1) Proposes a Dal Tex shooter from an obviously closed window? 2) Claims the Limo was black 3) Claimed to own a Carcano just like Oswald's, and yet, never knew the scope was a cantilever mount? (that's a fancy word for side mount) 4) That claimed the jump seat sat on rails and was adjustable. 5) That claims JFK is grimacing shielding his face, when everyone, including the witnesses say he was smiling and waving? 6) That claimed Jackie never climbed out on the trunk? 7) That claims a shot at 285 narrowly misses the limo,(because he studied it "very closely" in his cad program) Only to find out this shot goes over by some 40 feet. 8) That claims Ronald Fuller, who's stretcher was near JBC's, was an accidental shooting victim. 9) That claims not one single person reacted to a shot before z285. Guess he missed the whole 223 thing huh? 10) That claims the evidence envelope from CE 842 was altered and forged. Just to find out all he had to do was turn the envelope over to see Fritz initials? I have to tell you Jim, to applaud the work of Harris speaks volumes about you.

Greg, Thanks for posting that. Is this in the record somewhere? I do not believe I have read this before.

Are you going to post the work of this physicist? Are you ever going to address my query about Pascals law? Do you even know what that is Jim? Do you have any idea just why pascals law applies to the topic at hand? Oh someone is dancing alright, and its pretty clear its Jim here. Stop dancing Jim and get to work.

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no? Greg, Hope you have been well! I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times.... I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree? I've been pretty well, Mike. Thanks for asking. Other than a case of whiplash from a huge wave in Hawaii last month--I'm fine. Now, back to the topic. I really don't expect the MSM to print things like that, do you? As an example, I remember sending C-SPAN a copy of an LBJ taped phone conversation with HOOVER in which HOOVER tells LBJ that [paraphrased] "If Connally wouldn't have been in the way, the president would have been hit by all three shots!" Well, now think about that one for a minute, Mike. How could Connally, who was seated IN FRONT of JFK, ever have been in the way of a shot intended for JFK if the shooter was located behind JFK? Yet, you can go to C-SPAN and find that telephone conversation for yourself...but, will it EVER appear in the New York Times? Not a chance. Greg, Hope you recover well! I have no doubt that if the mass media heard about this they would print it. They slaughter the political stem daily, why hold back now? As for the LBJ tape, I have not heard it, and do not know the context to take it in.

The refute my analysis, and don't give me any crap about difficulty posting equations. I do it all the time. Thats a cop out Jim, and it is as telling as your obvious mistakes regarding energy and force, not to mention your complete lack of understanding the physics presented. Well its only been posted some 30 times on JFK boards. I am sure Harris has seen it. Unfortunately Harris lacks the same ability you do. You both appear woefully inadequate to address the subject. Im still waiting for you to post the work of Feinman. I smell BS. Whats taking you so long Jim? Or Perhaps you'll see Mooreman's recent interview where she confirms she was standing on the grass? Ok so so far what we have from you is a bunch of "I thinks", a few exhibits that you don't comprehend energy, momentum and clearly don't know the difference between ft lbs energy and ft lbs force. We have a quick and transparent cop out that you cant post equations on a board, and then just a bunch of useless chin music. So are you going to put up, and prove me wrong as I have ask for two days now? How long must we wait?

Once again showing your lack of knowledge. You talk a fair game to those who know no better, but when you refer to energy and velocity transfer, your giving yourself away. Energy is consumed Mr. Phelp, momentum is transferred, and velocity, or the change in this velocity is the result. Are you kidding me? Come on Mr. Phelps. Really now? I find it amusing you seem to be using a principle of conservation of momentum, and referring to it as energy. You really need to rely more on education than wikipedia.... Then step up to the plate, and use the real world numbers, and show the calculations that prove me wrong, just as I asked in my initial post. I believe you have seen what I claim, now let see your work to refute it. Thus far the only hand waving and Bsing has come from you. SO should I expect a reply soon that even resembles the idea that you know what you are talking about?

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no? Greg, Hope you have been well! I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times.... I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree? nice dodge Sgt. Mikey..... Why would that be a dodge David? Unlike yourself, I would prefer to be informed before rendering an opinion. I know you do not partake of this particular habit, I myself do.

Glenn, I read some several pages of this thread, just to note that the subject quickly turned to angles yet again, which of course tossed your original question off track. I do not know if your original question was answered, as I could not bear to wade through any more crap to find out. The simple answer, is that NO there is nothing that says the bullet would travel a straight and perfect course. I would offer that has the bullet struck at a 90 degree angle to the target the likely hood of a straight and true course might be greater. You might want to read some of Sturdivan's testimony in regard to the yaw considerations of the bullet. I might also suggest looking about for some examples of bullets striking ballistic gel at odd angles. Hope this helps. Mike

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no? Greg, Hope you have been well! I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times.... I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree?

Well Jim, if your first remarks did not offer grave doubt as to your understanding of physics, these certainly do. I do not believe I have ever read that the effects of momentum are based upon living or dead objects. The weight of the target remains the same. Of course you could not agree, unless you understood the subject matter! The opportunity for you to do the calculations and show that I am wrong is upon you. Give it a go. If you feel wrong assumptions are being made, again, show the work and I will be glad to retract. I would rather be accurate than right any day. You ahve to golden opportunity to prove me wrong. As far as the claim that the back of the head bulges out after the rear entering bullet....I would think we should see this with a single entry to the back of the head. The real question here, is why do you think this has to be a ramification of a front entering bullet? Are you at all familiar with Pascals laws of fluid dynamics? I have not read Feinman's analysis. I would certainly have to do that before offering comment on his analysis, or your interpretation of it.