Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mike Williams

Members
  • Content Count

    1,023
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mike Williams

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

13,078 profile views
  1. 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 t
  2. 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.
  3. 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. The
  4. 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
  5. Very Crucial to you, and 2 others, that you contact me when you read this. My same last 2 telephone #'s you have are all still active (see followup Simkin PM and additional email)

  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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
  9. 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 no
  10. A new article by Bill Brown. http://www.jfkballistics.com/rubybasement.html
  11. 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 no
  12. 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 p
  13. 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 significantl
  14. 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 presenta
  15. 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 wro
×
×
  • Create New...