Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 (edited) Jack, Do you think it is appropriate that the moderators, up to and including John Simkin, have deleted posts and disappeared photographs when we were in the process of conducting productive research? You protested at the time. Why would I think that opponents of Judyth would not show up at the DPF? You have been there for some time, after all, and have made your typical posts debunking her, regardless of the evidence. Now you're attacking me. What's with you, Jack? You can't understand that, if we cannot research the autopsy photographs here, we need to move their study elsewhere? Regardless of your extreme partisanship, I think you can understand that. You have even claimed that I was "misquoting" you, when I was merely reposting an earlier post of yours, which even has the date and time. I worry about you, Jack. You seem to be losing your grip. Get a handle! Jim Edited May 22, 2010 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 (edited) Monk, Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment, which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559: From #2558: No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin". We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co- workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at 11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime. Jim From #2559: Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional. Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say: "Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen. Jim When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.Mike Williams Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course. Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so... Edited May 14, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Jim...I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU! I simply pointed out that on the DPF members are not allowed to comment on the motives or character of other members. Over there you cannot call people names or say their research is absurd. That is all I said. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 (edited) Monk,Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment, which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559: From #2558: No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin". We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co- workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at 11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime. Jim From #2559: Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional. Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say: "Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen. Jim When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.Mike Williams Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course. Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so... Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before. The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today. However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity. Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS. In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today. If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity. Edited May 14, 2010 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Jack, That is NOT "all (you) said". You also added the following offensive remark: And he should note that those wishing to continue to oppose him may follow him to DPF. Leaving this forum will not rid him of opposition to the JVB story. I can dispatch your (the critics) arguments there just as I've been doing here. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Monk,Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment, which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559: From #2558: No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin". We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co- workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at 11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime. Jim From #2559: Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional. Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say: "Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen. Jim When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.Mike Williams Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course. Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so... Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip. The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today. However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity. Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS. In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today. If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity. Pat, You need to begin such posts with a warning that it has common sense content, other wise Jim is prone to spitting sputtering and seizure like movements. Of course you are correct in your high velocity assessment. Why does it not amaze me that Jim can not comprehend this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Jim, Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Pat, Many others have studied this matter and concluded as I have concluded: Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden, JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY (1976), and Robert Groden and Harry Livingstone, HIGH TREASON (1989). If you read MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), you would know that. It's "Smoking Gun #3" on page 5. I did a study of a page from CASE CLOSED (2003) where I discussed this, "Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies", in THE FOURTH DECADE (January 1998), pp. 8-12, and http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html As with respect to the medical evidence, this appears to be another case where you insist you are right when you are actually wrong. Check it out. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Do you think it is appropriate that the moderators, up to and including John Simkin, have deleted posts and disappeared photographs when we were in the process of conducting productive research? Prof Fetzer, That is not quite correct. Neither posts nor subject images have been deleted; they have been made invisible and can still be made available to researchers who wish to view them. In this post I ask the members to opine their preferred method of viewing images which may be considered by some to be inappropriate for general viewing. So far, no-one has indicated a preference on this thread. The images are still available to those who wish to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost. Jim,Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Evan, When you post, you really should know what you are talking about. My post #2487 is GONE/DELETED/VANISHED/DISAPPEARED. So what you are saying, like that of several others before you, is simply wrong. Why don't you check it? There isn't even the remnant of a post and the sequence was renumbered. Jim Do you think it is appropriate that the moderators, up to and including John Simkin, have deleted posts and disappeared photographs when we were in the process of conducting productive research? Prof Fetzer, That is not quite correct. Neither posts nor subject images have been deleted; they have been made invisible and can still be made available to researchers who wish to view them. In this post I ask the members to opine their preferred method of viewing images which may be considered by some to be inappropriate for general viewing. So far, no-one has indicated a preference on this thread. The images are still available to those who wish to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Professor, You should read my post more carefully. I repeat: the posts and images have NOT been deleted; they are invisible but available to anyone who wishes to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 (edited) IMO censorship is not appropriate, and I so posted when it happened. Again, I HAVE NOT ATTACKED YOU regarding anything. I have questioned many statements by JVB and being neither logical nor factual. I keep your support for her story SEPARATE from what she says. You cannot refrain from attacking anyone who opposes her story and/or your support. You need to get back your OBJECTIVITY like you had before you became obsessed with Judyth. I have no problem with you posting the photos I furnished here, on DPF, your blog or ANYWHERE. I believe you should allow reasoned opposition, however, instead of declaring that everyone must believe as you do. The above DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ATTACK. As you say, you seem to be losing your grip! Get a handle! Jack Edited May 22, 2010 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 (edited) Jim...THERE IS NOTHING OFFENSIVE IN THE CITED REMARK. I simply said that your critics may follow you to DPF. WHAT IN THE WORLD IS OFFENSIVE about that? It is likely to happen. Expect it. But cease using personal references or you will be put on warning or suspended from DPF. Unlike this forum, they strictly enforce a NO AD-HOM POLICY. I worry that you find anything offensive as you quote it. IT IS NOT OFFENSIVE, as anyone who reads it will agree. Goodness gracious, Betsy! Jack Edited May 22, 2010 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 I have no problem with you posting the photos I furnished here, on DPF, your blog or ANYWHERE. Jack, I have uploaded the images onto a restricted website. Anyone wishing access to the images should contact myself or other mods, and we will supply you with the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now