Mike Williams

there is the coneshaped shockwave that precedes the bullet, spreading out in a fan behind the bullet.. There are also buzzes or flutters, and there are echoes.

Precisely! This is what makes the thought of silencers to ridiculous for any one who knows ballistics to contemplate.

Weren't there any witnesses at the east corner of Elm who recalled any movement by JFK, as is conveniently missing from Towner and the other film?

I don't see anything in any film that shows Greer nearly hitting the curb. There were people standing there, and that would have caused a ripple in the crowd. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing cars veering toward unsuspecting bystanders to compare reactions with.

I think Greer misperceived which street he was supposed to turn down and had to correct at the last second, which would have been a couple feet later than if he had not made his mistake. Locals in the crowd probably did a silent "Oops!" in their heads, knowing what almost happened. But do we see anyone in the crowd reacting with any concern in Towner? Kennedy seems the only person fazed by by any part of the turn...we'll never really know if he's reacting to a missed shot, or if he gave a little "Oops!" at the short turn himself, feeling the way one does when one misses a step on the stairs.

Any bets on whether JFK's dropped wave is a reaction to a pavement hit, or to the short turn? Either way, it's a significant moment that deserves exploration, and I'm glad Bob Harris brought it up.

Thanks David.

I think if JFK's reaction had been to the limo striking the curb or braking, he might have been thrown forward, but not to his left, toward Jackie. And the others riding with him would have reacted similarly. Nor would he have balled his hand into a fist.

Those reactions were unique. JFK never reacted like that during the motorcade previously or undoubtedly, any other time in his life. And the reactions began JUST as the limo pulled in front of the Daltex building and the window that was partially broken out on the third floor.

In the past, people blew off the notion that there was a shot then, because most witnesses said they never heard shots until later. But we have ignored the possibility that a suppressed weapon was used, which not only explains why most people never heard that shot, but why shots were fired wildly, missing the entire limousine. Suppressors are notorious for causing problems like that. And the mafia had been using suppressors for decades prior to 1963. There is no reason at all that they wouldn't have used them in the attack on JFK - when the limo was relatively close.

Harris you are a trip.

Seems you never learn your lesson. We have already proven that there was no exterior damage to the Limo, indicating no fragments struck it, we have already determined that no other occupant was hit by your imaginary fragments, so somehow these managed to not hit the Limo or anyone but JFK? :unsure: Were these special "controlled fragmentation" rounds, much like Fetzer's "controlled demolition" charges?

As you have also been told a silencer would still have emitted well over 100db, unless you are really going to contend someone was shooting sub sonic ammunition, which is idiotic at best. The shot would have been perfectly audible.

JFK's movements are replicated in other parts of the motorcade, as Mark Henceroth pointed out to you.

Not to mention that just scant seconds later the President is smiling widely and waving to the crowd. Would you do that if you had just been struck so severely by fragments that you ducked for cover?

And you have yet to prove that JFK was making a fist at all. You seem like this is a forgone conclusion, but how could you tell this when you apparently can't determine the color of the 20 foot long several thousand pound limo the man was riding in?

Demanding that I "prove" JFK balled his hand into a fist and then fell to his left, is a classic example. And so is your claim that the reactions were caused by the limousine braking. Any idiot knows those are bogus arguments. It was like demanding that I prove the limo was black.~Robert Harris

Um.....Robert....once again the limo was blue...... :ice

Hope I am not hijacking this thread. If so I will start a new one.

Regarding the visual analysis of the films and stills and the discussion of

reaction times to shots -

This is something that has bothered me for decades.

I just bring this up for clarification, and I am merely posing this as a question – I shoot but I am far from an expert -

somewhere in the plaza we have the actual location of the shooter, and hence the path of the rounds on their way to their target. We also have the true location, along the bullets path of the point where the sound emanates from. It is said it isn't actually at the rifle but possibly just in front of the rifle barrel. At any rate we have a rate of travel of a round. Perhaps something like 2200 feet per second. Perhaps more if the sniper is using his own load. Then we have the speed of sound at the atmospheric conditions of the day which is on record at the weather bureau. Then we have the actual location of the witnesses ears in relation to the starting point of the sounds of those shots.

My point is that it seems to me that these rounds have met their destination BEFORE the sound of the shot report reaches the ear of the witness.

Is this taken into account when analyzing the photo record frame by frame?

My question is, for example, how much time delay is there in Mrs. Kennedy visually seeing a reaction from the President and reacting to the SOUND of the gun report, and is she reacting to a motion by Mr. Kennedy or the sound of the shot?

Is this time delay significant and relevant? Just asking as I can't figure how much faster the bullet is from its sound and if this phenomenon is significant is it taken into account with all these analyses?

Also with the same theory in mind, from I believe Mr. Harris' Part One at 2:25 Connolly said he "never heard the shot that hit him" Seems to me that this would be understandable

as the bullet physically impacted him before the sound wave reached his

ear, and his body had time to instantly involuntarily react in shock so that the perception of that sound would be blocked out or forgotten right from the beginning as he was instantly in a trauma state as he was hit.

There might be other things that perhaps my point should be taken into account when considering.

Opinions?

Jerry,

Sometime ago I wrote an article called first shot first hit. Not knowing at the time of Barbs piece. I used bullet travel times wtc to examine the shooting, and I will look for that as I should post it to my ballistics website www.jfkballistics.com.

Also your observation about JBC is correct. When a bullet strikes the body it is not unusual for the body to experience an overload of sorts, of the central nervous system. As they say you never hear the one that gets you. Harris and I discussed this sometime ago and I posted some examples.

Ill try and dig those up as well.

Mike

Erasing and forgery indeed LMAO!

I dont know why Robert would not have used this very photo from Hunt's article, surely he knew it existed, and it clearly shows none of the "erasure marks" Bob keeps squalkin about!

How ridiculous.

I can't believe that even you would be stupid enough to make an argument like this.

Yes even I would be stupid enough to post a clear photo that shows no igns of the tampering you yearn for.

Does it have sinister implications to me? Not really, implications of sheer stupidity, of course, but yet, hardly shocking.

As for the issues with the rifle. I see no indication that it was unacceptable at this time, but am still looking into some of the claims made about it. I find most are completely unfounded. I have addressed the issue f the rifle order, as well as some of the other issues you raise, but I have not addressed them with you, so you would not know that.

I also am unsure what you mean by a miss of 18 feet....I am the one who does not believe there was a miss....remember?

That's one of your "assumptions" that you work from Mike. You hold an "assumption" that these odd events do not have "sinister implications" and it alters the way you look at the evidence.

I however, work from an "assumption" that these odd events do have "sinister implications." If there were just one or two, or even a handful, I'd possibly look at them, holding in my mind, a different "assumption." There are are far too many for me to do this.

For example, all of the question marks over some of the evidence has you working from an "assumption" that the Dallas Police weren't corrupt but were instead incompetent in certain things. I work from the "assumption" that certain individuals in the Dallas Police Department were corrupt beyond belief. So consequently, we are going to look at Captain Will Fritz's behaviours in completely different ways.

The issue of the ordering of the rifle has never had anyone from the other side give me any explanation that remotely resembles convincing and, I don't want this to sound rude, if yours is as good as what Bugliosi and DVP have to offer then it's best to keep it to yourself.

There are too many questions (hundred upon hundreds) that you would have to come up with some reasonable explanation for in order for me to change the "assumptions" I have structured in my mind concerning the JFK evidence. And up till now you have given me no reasonable explanations for any of them (and I've even read some of your musings on the JFK Assassination Forum.) This isn't because you're nuts and it's certainly not because I am either. It's simply because I look at the evidence differently, with different biases, I put it in a wider historical context with a "master narrative", I form patterns and connections in my mind that you don't, and if you believe Oswald did it then the so called evidence fits, and if you believe he didn't the evidence doesn't.

Simple as that...

I simply refuse to consider something sinister before it is reasonably proven to be so. Take the rifle ordering for example. We know Klein's sold both models. We know Klein's sold both, with scopes. They were the exact same price, nearly the exact same length, and had nearly the exact same order number, one having a "T" in it and the other not. One was C20-750, the other C20-T750. Now I don't know about you, but I have ordered things here in the computer age, and received the wrong item. I wonder if Oswald would have even noticed?

Mike

...and you know what? I'd be willing to hold my hands up and concede that this could have been a mistake on the part of Klein's...

...if it wasn't for the questions marks over many others aspects of this one, single part of the overall story.

The fact that the WC couldn't even get a coupon into evidence that was from the correct copy of the magazine Oswald supposedly ripped it from and had in his belongings. The fact that the money order coupon he bought the rifle with doesn't follow a sequential pattern when he ordered the rifle. The fact that he bought the money order and then posted the order miles apart. The fact that the money order didn't have the correct bank stampings on it, as it should have, when it was cashed by Klein's. The fact that Oswald ordered it in the name Hidell and it was delivered to a P.O. Box in the name of Oswald with no further names included on the application for the box entitling anyone other than Oswald to pick items up - in other words the rifle should have been sent back immediately as Return to Sender as there was no Hidell registered at that box. The list just goes on and on Mike. You take each piece of evidence and you could if you wanted to wave it away as a mistake (as you are doing with the receipt of the wrong length of rifle) but I shake my head in disbelief when you are willing to do this with item after item after item after item...

...all of these things cannot be, and in all likelihood and probability, are not mistakes.

Lee

Lee,

Initially I would say that if Klein's had shipped the wrong rifle, in error, then chances are they would not have known it was an error, and thus the receipt would not reflect the error. I do not find the PO Box issue very significant at all. I have had several over the years and received packages, walked in gave them my number and name and bingo, got the parcel. Most Postal Employees in the US are not really interested in much, besides getting people in and out, and not being bothered. Just my take.

By far the most compelling argument you make is the Money order, and I would like to know a bit more about that, so point me in the right direction. Any articles written on it already? Be glad to look a bit further into it.

Mike

Mike

That's not my point. I'm sure certain P.O. Box employees can't be arsed and don't bother checking ID. The point is the rifle should have been sent back. It wasn't addressed to Oswald, it was addressed to Hidell. There was no Hidell with a post office box. RTS straight away. That's the point.

I'll go though the money order in a bit more detail later and give you the steer on some of the better articles and books. Going into a meeting

Lee

That's a good point Lee.

I look forward to hearing back. Have a good meeting.

Mike

Does it have sinister implications to me? Not really, implications of sheer stupidity, of course, but yet, hardly shocking.

As for the issues with the rifle. I see no indication that it was unacceptable at this time, but am still looking into some of the claims made about it. I find most are completely unfounded. I have addressed the issue f the rifle order, as well as some of the other issues you raise, but I have not addressed them with you, so you would not know that.

I also am unsure what you mean by a miss of 18 feet....I am the one who does not believe there was a miss....remember?

That's one of your "assumptions" that you work from Mike. You hold an "assumption" that these odd events do not have "sinister implications" and it alters the way you look at the evidence.

I however, work from an "assumption" that these odd events do have "sinister implications." If there were just one or two, or even a handful, I'd possibly look at them, holding in my mind, a different "assumption." There are are far too many for me to do this.

For example, all of the question marks over some of the evidence has you working from an "assumption" that the Dallas Police weren't corrupt but were instead incompetent in certain things. I work from the "assumption" that certain individuals in the Dallas Police Department were corrupt beyond belief. So consequently, we are going to look at Captain Will Fritz's behaviours in completely different ways.

The issue of the ordering of the rifle has never had anyone from the other side give me any explanation that remotely resembles convincing and, I don't want this to sound rude, if yours is as good as what Bugliosi and DVP have to offer then it's best to keep it to yourself.

There are too many questions (hundred upon hundreds) that you would have to come up with some reasonable explanation for in order for me to change the "assumptions" I have structured in my mind concerning the JFK evidence. And up till now you have given me no reasonable explanations for any of them (and I've even read some of your musings on the JFK Assassination Forum.) This isn't because you're nuts and it's certainly not because I am either. It's simply because I look at the evidence differently, with different biases, I put it in a wider historical context with a "master narrative", I form patterns and connections in my mind that you don't, and if you believe Oswald did it then the so called evidence fits, and if you believe he didn't the evidence doesn't.

Simple as that...

I simply refuse to consider something sinister before it is reasonably proven to be so. Take the rifle ordering for example. We know Klein's sold both models. We know Klein's sold both, with scopes. They were the exact same price, nearly the exact same length, and had nearly the exact same order number, one having a "T" in it and the other not. One was C20-750, the other C20-T750. Now I don't know about you, but I have ordered things here in the computer age, and received the wrong item. I wonder if Oswald would have even noticed?

Mike

...and you know what? I'd be willing to hold my hands up and concede that this could have been a mistake on the part of Klein's...

...if it wasn't for the questions marks over many others aspects of this one, single part of the overall story.

The fact that the WC couldn't even get a coupon into evidence that was from the correct copy of the magazine Oswald supposedly ripped it from and had in his belongings. The fact that the money order coupon he bought the rifle with doesn't follow a sequential pattern when he ordered the rifle. The fact that he bought the money order and then posted the order miles apart. The fact that the money order didn't have the correct bank stampings on it, as it should have, when it was cashed by Klein's. The fact that Oswald ordered it in the name Hidell and it was delivered to a P.O. Box in the name of Oswald with no further names included on the application for the box entitling anyone other than Oswald to pick items up - in other words the rifle should have been sent back immediately as Return to Sender as there was no Hidell registered at that box. The list just goes on and on Mike. You take each piece of evidence and you could if you wanted to wave it away as a mistake (as you are doing with the receipt of the wrong length of rifle) but I shake my head in disbelief when you are willing to do this with item after item after item after item...

...all of these things cannot be, and in all likelihood and probability, are not mistakes.

Lee

Lee,

Initially I would say that if Klein's had shipped the wrong rifle, in error, then chances are they would not have known it was an error, and thus the receipt would not reflect the error. I do not find the PO Box issue very significant at all. I have had several over the years and received packages, walked in gave them my number and name and bingo, got the parcel. Most Postal Employees in the US are not really interested in much, besides getting people in and out, and not being bothered. Just my take.

By far the most compelling argument you make is the Money order, and I would like to know a bit more about that, so point me in the right direction. Any articles written on it already? Be glad to look a bit further into it.

Mike

Does it have sinister implications to me? Not really, implications of sheer stupidity, of course, but yet, hardly shocking.

As for the issues with the rifle. I see no indication that it was unacceptable at this time, but am still looking into some of the claims made about it. I find most are completely unfounded. I have addressed the issue f the rifle order, as well as some of the other issues you raise, but I have not addressed them with you, so you would not know that.

I also am unsure what you mean by a miss of 18 feet....I am the one who does not believe there was a miss....remember?

That's one of your "assumptions" that you work from Mike. You hold an "assumption" that these odd events do not have "sinister implications" and it alters the way you look at the evidence.

I however, work from an "assumption" that these odd events do have "sinister implications." If there were just one or two, or even a handful, I'd possibly look at them, holding in my mind, a different "assumption." There are are far too many for me to do this.

For example, all of the question marks over some of the evidence has you working from an "assumption" that the Dallas Police weren't corrupt but were instead incompetent in certain things. I work from the "assumption" that certain individuals in the Dallas Police Department were corrupt beyond belief. So consequently, we are going to look at Captain Will Fritz's behaviours in completely different ways.

The issue of the ordering of the rifle has never had anyone from the other side give me any explanation that remotely resembles convincing and, I don't want this to sound rude, if yours is as good as what Bugliosi and DVP have to offer then it's best to keep it to yourself.

There are too many questions (hundred upon hundreds) that you would have to come up with some reasonable explanation for in order for me to change the "assumptions" I have structured in my mind concerning the JFK evidence. And up till now you have given me no reasonable explanations for any of them (and I've even read some of your musings on the JFK Assassination Forum.) This isn't because you're nuts and it's certainly not because I am either. It's simply because I look at the evidence differently, with different biases, I put it in a wider historical context with a "master narrative", I form patterns and connections in my mind that you don't, and if you believe Oswald did it then the so called evidence fits, and if you believe he didn't the evidence doesn't.

Simple as that...

I simply refuse to consider something sinister before it is reasonably proven to be so. Take the rifle ordering for example. We know Klein's sold both models. We know Klein's sold both, with scopes. They were the exact same price, nearly the exact same length, and had nearly the exact same order number, one having a "T" in it and the other not. One was C20-750, the other C20-T750. Now I don't know about you, but I have ordered things here in the computer age, and received the wrong item. I wonder if Oswald would have even noticed?

Mike

1) Mike must look at the evidence in the same manner Lee does.

2) Mike must insure that every anomaly be read with a sinister intent.

3) Mike must not, above all else, consider any possibility of Oswald's guilt.

You mean rules like that?

Excellent. I wasn't expecting you to be so accommodating but gee whizz things will move along swimmingly from now on.

Mike. I simply ask you to look at the timings of the two events. This isn't a "ball dropping" enigma where events are separated by weeks, months or years. It is a very precise and calculated event that was purposefully designed to ensure that the alarm didn't go off on Oswald the DAY BEFORE it was GOING TO. I'm really sorry that you aren't more curious about this kind of thing because deep down I know you're a good guy ( and I like the fact that you can take the stick I give out - well most of the time) but these events define the whole story concerning who Oswald was, who was controlling and manipulating him and who had the power to do these kinds of things to ensure that it looked like he'd been to Mexico, met with a KGB assassination expert, and tried to get visa's through Cuba on his way to Russia. This is the game that was being played. Create a back story for the patsy of horrific proportions, that will ensure that good men will later do bad things, and get rid of "that red haired bastard from Boston" as one of the Dallas Newspaper owners quite eloquently described the former president of the United States.

I'll explain what I meant by ground rules later today but a good shout out from you on the starting point. I believe the real starting point however would be to detail both of our "assumptions" that we are both working from concerning these events we "try" to discuss...

Lee,

I'm not disagreeing that the timing is odd. Not at all. I would just like some further evidence that is was deliberate and sinister in nature and not just a snafu. I have no problem admitting assumptions, and would be glad to show you yours at every opportunity! LOL! I am teasing, and for the record think pretty highly of you as well. Your one of the few who can take is as well as dish it out.

Mike

How did you determine that there was no damage or scratches on the limo Michael. Please be specific.

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, have you now described all of your findings on the windshield of the Presidential limousine?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; that is concerning the glass itself and not the molding around the windshield.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you then move to the molding around the windshield and state what, if anything, you found there?

Mr. FRAZIER - On the strip of chrome which goes across the top of the- windshield and again on the passenger side of the windshield or the inside surface, I found a dent in the chrome which had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface.

Mr. SPECTER - Was there one dent or more than one dent or what?

Mr. FRAZIER - One dent.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you identify what is depicted by a photograph heretofore marked as Commission Exhibit 349?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this is a photograph which I took of this dent at that time, showing the damaged chrome, just to the right of the rearview mirror support at the top of the windshield.

Mr. SPECTER - Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.

Then Frazier's Shaw trial testimony:

Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, other than the windshield of the automobile, could you tell us what particular examinations were conducted with other parts of this vehicle?

A: Yes, sir. The first examination which was made was of the exterior portions of the vehicle. We examined the outer surface of the hood, the grille area, both front fender areas, all the metal work on the outside of the automobile. The examination was for two purposes, to determine whether there were any bullets or other projectile impact areas on the outside of the car and also to note the presence of the foreign material deposited on it. We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area. We found however, no bullet holes or projectile marks.

Q: Did you find any impact areas on this automobile?

A: Nothing which could be identified as a bullet impact area except the one on the inside of the windshield.

There was no damage to the outside.

If JFK was reacting to the driver braking, why did that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie?

Or more appropriately, how many times do you want me to answer the same question?

You have yet to prove that he made a fist at all, and all you have to support your assumption is a grainy piece of film that at best is inconclusive in supporting your contention. You have zero in the area of witness testimony that supports a shot at this time, and in fact do have a piece of testimony that could well explain an unusual movement. Although you disregard this, as it does not fit your theory.

Mr. TRULY. That is right.

And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.

Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?

Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.

If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

And why didn't any of the other limo passengers react as he did?? I don't see Jacking balling her hand into a fist. Why not???

Hell Robert I don't even see JFK balling his hand into a fist as you say. In fact, in following this, I do not believe I have found another person who believes they see this fist either, although there may be one somewhere.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2332.0.html

As for the fact that you are a xxxxx, the quality of your arguments and logic, proves that. You don't even defend your arguments from one thread to the next, because you have no position. You only look for excuses to attack and insult me and endlessly spew out excrement that you don't believe for a millisecond.

Really? Are you kidding me? Not defending my position? I bet there are many I have debated who would likely disagree Robert, and you should as well, I have been debating you for quite some time, and it seems that most agree with my opinion of the events.

I dont need excuses to attack you Robert, your work offers many opportunities to be attacked, is comes along with the very assumptive nature of your work. You have nothing more than assumptions and conjecture, and try to pass them off as facts.

Demanding that I "prove" JFK balled his hand into a fist and then fell to his left, is a classic example. And so is your claim that the reactions were caused by the limousine braking. Any idiot knows those are bogus arguments. It was like demanding that I prove the limo was black.

Are you tugging my leg? DID you really just say that? I fear now that I see the issue. You have problems with eye sight.

JFK's Limo was Midnight Blue and not Black, Robert.

"Many of us recall, from repeated viewings of the Zapruder-film footage of the assassination, that Kennedy's limo was midnight blue. But it's now black. In fact, it's been black since Lyndon Johnson ordered that new paint job in 1964, thinking that the midnight-blue color was too closely associated in the public mind with Kennedy's assassination."

http://autos.aol.com/article/kennedy-presidential-limo/

How in the world can we place any value on what you see in the films, when you can not even see the color of the car??

Good Heavens!

Lee,

Thanks for giving the stuff a read. I will have to look into the FLASH a bit more, do you have a source for information?

No worries on the z and s thing. I wear out my spell check anihoe lol.

Mike

I've given them to you already but I understand how slow you are on the uptake:

James Hosty 'Assignment Oswald'

John Newman 'Oswald and the CIA'

The question I would like you to answer is this. Oswald apparently goes to Mexico City. The information collected by the CIA on this "Oswald" in Mexico City is about to be sent to the FBI. He's visited the Cuban Consulate requesting a visa. He has visited the Russian Embassy requesting a visa. He is denied at both as he wants it immediately. He apparently meets with Valery Vladimirovich Kostikov (Officer in Charge of Western Hemisphere Division 13 that includes assassinations). He leaves and returns to Dallas.

The information that was due to be sent regarding this little excursion from the Mexico City CIA Office to the FBI would have blew the lid on any assassination attempt, because the minute the SS and FBI started planning the Kennedy trip Oswald would have been lifted off the streets and kept in custody while JFK was in Dallas. However, all of this would only happen if Oswald's FLASH remained on his FBI file. It didn't. It was removed on October 9th. The memo from the CIA came in on October 10th. Perfect timing eh Mike?

I'd like to know, from an 'Oswald Did It' mindset, why you think this happened? It could only happen if it was planned and it could only happen if pretty powerful CIA personnel were pulling the strings. Oswald couldn't remove himself from the security watch could he?

How do you reconcile this with the 'Oswald was a madman' approach?

Lee

Rather simply.

He was a madman and deserved a FLASH be attached. Why would anyone drop the ball like this? Its a good thing those men were punished.

Was the slow on the uptake comment really necessary? Check your undies again...they may be bunching.

The "slow on the uptake" comment is now very necessary given your reply Mike.

This is what is so frustrating about trying to discuss these issues with people whose paradigm simply will not shift even in the face of "evidence" and "facts" that you claim to follow "without prejudice."

It really doesn't matter what is presented, you'll simply dismiss it as a single piece of evidence with a overly simple explanation (that isn't really an explanation) and then refuse to add it and merge with other similar pieces of evidence.

If you read your reply to what is one small aspect of a very complex whole, you'll begin to see why "we" do not take your side seriously in any way, shape or form. You answer with a question and an opinion of the consequences and now you'll toddle off and continue talking about "Oswald's" perfectly acceptable scope on "his" perfectly functioning rifle and how "he" fired two perfect shots where one came out reasonably undamaged and the other splintered into a hundred pieces and use the same tactics as you use above to tell us why "his" first one missed by 18 feet. And while you're doing this you'll ignore every anomaly and question about the dubious rifle advert, Oswald "ordering" a different rifle, the money order not going through the correct process, the problem with having it delivered to a P.O. Box in a different name etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

If you would like to discuss thing in the future maybe some ground rules are in order because I refuse to waste any more time playing "evidence" tennis with you...

Lee I can only offer my opinions as thats all I have. After 24 years working for Uncle Sam did you expect me to really be shocked that someone in the US Government dropped the ball on something? Are you kidding me?

Let me share something with you.

When I went to stage for the invasion of Iraq, I arrived and went to draw my issue. Rifle, check. Kevlar Helmet, check. Canteens, check. Pack, check. Pistol, check. Hey wait a minute, where is my ballistic vest?

I was told, with a straight face that the COC (chain of command) determined that scout/snipers were not front line and did not require an issue of a vest, as they were in short supply! Allegedly we would never get close enough to the enemy to need a vest, and yet these morons issued me a pistol! Um........that is Uncle Sam logic.

I had to write home and have my father send me a vest. Good thing I did, my Hummer was a tin side with a canvas top for the invasion! Epic Blunder two.

So if you think for a minute that some yokel dropping the ball on a Flash is at all outside the norm,I assure you it is in no way shocking to me. Do I ignore this "evidence"? Nope, I just chalk it up to a long line of mess ups that I have seen over the years!

Does it have sinister implications to me? Not really, implications of sheer stupidity, of course, but yet, hardly shocking.

As for the issues with the rifle. I see no indication that it was unacceptable at this time, but am still looking into some of the claims made about it. I find most are completely unfounded. I have addressed the issue f the rifle order, as well as some of the other issues you raise, but I have not addressed them with you, so you would not know that.

I also am unsure what you mean by a miss of 18 feet....I am the one who does not believe there was a miss....remember?

What ground rules would you propose?

1) Mike must look at the evidence in the same manner Lee does.

2) Mike must insure that every anomaly be read with a sinister intent.

3) Mike must not, above all else, consider any possibility of Oswald's guilt.

You mean rules like that?

Even if one includes Bennett as a firm witness for a first shot miss, however, and arbitrarily dismisses the statements of those hearing only two shots under the assumption they failed to hear the first shot, and the statements of those claiming the first shot was the head shot under the assumption their recollections are just not credible, the score remains 23-1 in favor of statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one hit, vs. statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one missed. Unless someone can come up with a reason why all these witnesses were wrong while Bennett, who was not even asked to testify to clarify his statements, was right, the evidence is overwhelming that the first shot hit.

Pat, you are wrong.

First, do a tally of the witnesses who were watching Jackie durng the early Zfilm. Everyone I am aware of, said she was looking to her left when the first shot was fired - including her. And she began to react by 170, turning toward her husband, never looking to the left side of the road again.

There was a shot fired circa 160 which was heard by some witnesses - perhaps because it made a noise when it shattered on the pavement. We see both Jackie and JFK react to it simultaneously. But no-one heard the shot at 223, including John Connally. That's because the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. Nor did they hear the shot that was fired during the Towner film. Now, before anyone laughs at that suggestion, PLEASE watch this video or at least, the first part of it. If JFK was not reacting to a gunshot then, then what was he reacting to??

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov

If is also available on Youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/8/gkAc76n8q44

There may have been a shot fired at 160, but it most definitely was not the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses. The "we know when the shots struck because the occupants of the car turned argument" is a failed one. Mary Woodward said the occupants turned to look at her when she and her friends yelled out. Connally said he turned to his left and back real fast because he was stretching. In short, we don't know why they turned, and pretending we can discern shots by the reactions of but a few people, when dozens of witnesses, including those whose reactions we are judging, disagree with the conclusion the first shot was fired at frame 160, and that Kennedy calmly resumed waving to his right after the first shot, is silly.

The first shot miss at frame 160 is an absolute myth. I discuss this throughout chapters 5 thru 9b. A quick summary was already posted on this thread. In chapter 9b I go through Bugliosi's witnesses for a first shot miss, and show how he lies about almost all of them. You may want to take a look.

In trying to determine when shots were fired during a silent film, our most valuable resource is to study the visible reactions of the victims and the people around them.

JFK's first reactions was during the Towner film. He started to wave and within a half of a second, snapped his hand back, balling it into a fist. Then, within a fraction of a second, he dropped to his left and then straightened back up.

Have you looked at my presentation on this? What is your opinion about it?

I think that Roy Truly was correct in that the limo braked and came hard left to avoid the curb. I see no reaction from anyone that could even remotely be considered in reaction to a shot.

Then why was JFK the only one to react? And if the limo braked, why would that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie??

Please be specific.

As for your ridiculous claim that his reaction could not have been to a gunshot, I don't think you believe that at all. You simply jump on any opportunity to fabricate a subjective opinion that contradicts me, without the slightest regard for the truth.

That's all part of your little campaign to follow me around from forum to forum and thread to thread, trolling and running resistance, even when you have to make a total fool out of yourself to do it.

In fact, JFK reacted EXACTLY as we would expect anyone to react if they had been pelted by debris from a missed shot.

And yet, there is not damage to the Limo from your imaginary shot, there is no evidence of anyone being hit by this debris, and there is not one piece of testimony that would concur that a shot had happened at this time.

Do you eve have any proof that his hand balls into a fist?

Do you have any evidence that he falls to his left?

Yep this is another Harris hallucination.

As for following you from forum to forum, I am a member here and at Duncan's place, is it not the purpose of a forum to debate and discuss ideas? I know that you would prefer I remain quiet, and not make you look so foolish, but that just is not going to happen.

History deserves accuracy, not fool-hearty assumptions.

smiling and waving?:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063

Tell me where you believe Hill is looking in this frame?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_WFMYjyhMI&feature=player_embedded

Like many others, including Brehm, Moorman and J Hill, Clint Hill did not hear any of the early shots. Look at him in the Altgens photo, taken at Z255. He is the ONLY agent on the running boards who is not looking back or reacting.

He leaped from the running board almost simultaneous with the shot at 312-313, in reaction to a shot that was immediately prior to that. And he thought (mistakenly of course), that JFK first reacted, almost simultaneous with him jumping,

Representative FORD. Did you see the President put his hands to his throat and chest while you were still on the followup car, or after you had left it?

Mr. HILL. As I was leaving..

Hill jumped from the running board in reaction to the shot at 285, thinking that was the first shot and that JFK had just started to react. Nothing else makes sense.

This is really silly, Robert. If Hill saw Kennedy put his hands to his throat, he saw him BEFORE Z-285, and the shot he heard BEFORE he saw Kennedy reach for his throat was therefore seconds BEFORE Z-285. Your trying to spin him as a witness for a shot at Z-285 just doesn't work.

Hill, like HARGIS and a number of others, heard two shots--an early one to which Kennedy reacted, and a second one they associated with the large head wound. Many more thought there were two shots, bang-bang, around the time Kennedy was struck in the head. If you're gonna argue for a shot at Z-285, your best bet is to argue that it was the first of the two shots people heard as bang-bang, and Hill (and others) heard as one sound.

But that's also problematic. Most of the closest witnesses--Brehm, Moorman, Hill, Hudson, Summers--heard a shot after the headshot, which suggests the headshot was the first of the two shots heard as bang-bang by so many, and not the second.

Your belief that Hill saw JFK with his hands raised prior to 285, is in direct contradiction to what he said. To put it another way, if you want to know what shot Hill heard, then listen to him.

Hill believed that JFK first raised his hands, as he was jumping off the running board, which he did at or a hair prior to 312. Read the citation I posted from his WC testimony.

And he said that he was scanning a small group in a grassy area who were watching the limo pass them.

On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker.

This is important, Pat. Look at him at frame 223. He is looking slightly to the right and could not possibly be scanning people on the lefthand side of the road. In fact, he NEVER looks to his left while he was visible in the Zfilm.

And while you're looking at him in the wide film, look at his orientation at 247-249, as we lose sight of him. Then look at his orientation a third of a second later in the Altgens photo. He is turning at a fairly rapid pace, to his left, and toward Brehm and the people around him. At that pace, he was scanning those people about a second prior to the shot.

High powered rifle shots are very loud and very startling. Clint Hill did not and could not have heard such a thing and then just stood around for five seconds, picking his nose. We would expect him to react immediately, and when he heard what he believed was a real gunshot, he did.

I agree with you that there was another shot after 312-313, but it was probably fired from a handgun which was subsonic and much weaker than the rifleshot that preceded it by a small fraction of a second. A majority of people never heard it, or wrote it off as an echo.

Robert,

Is this another "smiling and waving" fiasco?

There is no possible way you can tell where Hills eyes are looking.....Hes wearing friggin sunglasses!

Do you ever make any assertions based on facts? Or is conjecture your only strong suit?

I have no idea what "smiling and waving" fiasco you are talking about Michael. Sounds like it's long past Miller time for you, eh:-)

And your argument that we cannot tell which direction Hill was facing, because he was wearing sunglasses, it just goofy. Even if he wasn't wearing them, we could not see his eyes from that distance. But it is obvious, that his head was turned to the right then, and that he was not scanning people on the south side of the road.

Oh Robert you are a wonder.

You have no idea what I am talking about in regard to the smiling and waving fiasco? Really? I would think this through if I were you.

So you make my point and agree that it is impossible to determine where Hill is looking? You readily admit you can not see his eyes, so you are making an assumption based on a slight angle of the head, even though the eyes are capable of seeing nearly 180 degrees with no head movement?

You may have a future in comedy.

Even if one includes Bennett as a firm witness for a first shot miss, however, and arbitrarily dismisses the statements of those hearing only two shots under the assumption they failed to hear the first shot, and the statements of those claiming the first shot was the head shot under the assumption their recollections are just not credible, the score remains 23-1 in favor of statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one hit, vs. statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one missed. Unless someone can come up with a reason why all these witnesses were wrong while Bennett, who was not even asked to testify to clarify his statements, was right, the evidence is overwhelming that the first shot hit.

Pat, you are wrong.

First, do a tally of the witnesses who were watching Jackie durng the early Zfilm. Everyone I am aware of, said she was looking to her left when the first shot was fired - including her. And she began to react by 170, turning toward her husband, never looking to the left side of the road again.

There was a shot fired circa 160 which was heard by some witnesses - perhaps because it made a noise when it shattered on the pavement. We see both Jackie and JFK react to it simultaneously. But no-one heard the shot at 223, including John Connally. That's because the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. Nor did they hear the shot that was fired during the Towner film. Now, before anyone laughs at that suggestion, PLEASE watch this video or at least, the first part of it. If JFK was not reacting to a gunshot then, then what was he reacting to??

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov

If is also available on Youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/8/gkAc76n8q44

There may have been a shot fired at 160, but it most definitely was not the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses. The "we know when the shots struck because the occupants of the car turned argument" is a failed one. Mary Woodward said the occupants turned to look at her when she and her friends yelled out. Connally said he turned to his left and back real fast because he was stretching. In short, we don't know why they turned, and pretending we can discern shots by the reactions of but a few people, when dozens of witnesses, including those whose reactions we are judging, disagree with the conclusion the first shot was fired at frame 160, and that Kennedy calmly resumed waving to his right after the first shot, is silly.

The first shot miss at frame 160 is an absolute myth. I discuss this throughout chapters 5 thru 9b. A quick summary was already posted on this thread. In chapter 9b I go through Bugliosi's witnesses for a first shot miss, and show how he lies about almost all of them. You may want to take a look.

In trying to determine when shots were fired during a silent film, our most valuable resource is to study the visible reactions of the victims and the people around them.

JFK's first reactions was during the Towner film. He started to wave and within a half of a second, snapped his hand back, balling it into a fist. Then, within a fraction of a second, he dropped to his left and then straightened back up.

Have you looked at my presentation on this? What is your opinion about it?

I think that Roy Truly was correct in that the limo braked and came hard left to avoid the curb. I see no reaction from anyone that could even remotely be considered in reaction to a shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_WFMYjyhMI&feature=player_embedded

Like many others, including Brehm, Moorman and J Hill, Clint Hill did not hear any of the early shots. Look at him in the Altgens photo, taken at Z255. He is the ONLY agent on the running boards who is not looking back or reacting.

He leaped from the running board almost simultaneous with the shot at 312-313, in reaction to a shot that was immediately prior to that. And he thought (mistakenly of course), that JFK first reacted, almost simultaneous with him jumping,

Representative FORD. Did you see the President put his hands to his throat and chest while you were still on the followup car, or after you had left it?

Mr. HILL. As I was leaving..

Hill jumped from the running board in reaction to the shot at 285, thinking that was the first shot and that JFK had just started to react. Nothing else makes sense.

This is really silly, Robert. If Hill saw Kennedy put his hands to his throat, he saw him BEFORE Z-285, and the shot he heard BEFORE he saw Kennedy reach for his throat was therefore seconds BEFORE Z-285. Your trying to spin him as a witness for a shot at Z-285 just doesn't work.

Hill, like HARGIS and a number of others, heard two shots--an early one to which Kennedy reacted, and a second one they associated with the large head wound. Many more thought there were two shots, bang-bang, around the time Kennedy was struck in the head. If you're gonna argue for a shot at Z-285, your best bet is to argue that it was the first of the two shots people heard as bang-bang, and Hill (and others) heard as one sound.

But that's also problematic. Most of the closest witnesses--Brehm, Moorman, Hill, Hudson, Summers--heard a shot after the headshot, which suggests the headshot was the first of the two shots heard as bang-bang by so many, and not the second.

Your belief that Hill saw JFK with his hands raised prior to 285, is in direct contradiction to what he said. To put it another way, if you want to know what shot Hill heard, then listen to him.

Hill believed that JFK first raised his hands, as he was jumping off the running board, which he did at or a hair prior to 312. Read the citation I posted from his WC testimony.

And he said that he was scanning a small group in a grassy area who were watching the limo pass them.

On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker.

This is important, Pat. Look at him at frame 223. He is looking slightly to the right and could not possibly be scanning people on the lefthand side of the road. In fact, he NEVER looks to his left while he was visible in the Zfilm.

And while you're looking at him in the wide film, look at his orientation at 247-249, as we lose sight of him. Then look at his orientation a third of a second later in the Altgens photo. He is turning at a fairly rapid pace, to his left, and toward Brehm and the people around him. At that pace, he was scanning those people about a second prior to the shot.

High powered rifle shots are very loud and very startling. Clint Hill did not and could not have heard such a thing and then just stood around for five seconds, picking his nose. We would expect him to react immediately, and when he heard what he believed was a real gunshot, he did.

I agree with you that there was another shot after 312-313, but it was probably fired from a handgun which was subsonic and much weaker than the rifleshot that preceded it by a small fraction of a second. A majority of people never heard it, or wrote it off as an echo.

Robert,

Is this another "smiling and waving" fiasco?

There is no possible way you can tell where Hills eyes are looking.....Hes wearing friggin sunglasses!

Do you ever make any assertions based on facts? Or is conjecture your only strong suit?

I don't post much here but I am compelled to add something to what Pat just commented on. Wasn't there some commotion or loud noise reported by some on the Grassy Knoll involving Black Dog man that some think was a young man and his wife/gf? I think it was speculated as the dropping of a glass bottle of soda or something. Could that have been a firecracker in reality?

Certainly seems to be a smart diverse tactic.

Jerry,

At some point I read a testimony about someone throwing something into a bush.....and no it was not George Bush LOL!

Can not recall where I read that.

Mike

Thanks Mike, I will look for that. By the way, I meant diversion tactic, not diverse.

Jerry,

No worries buddy I knew what ya meant. If you get a chance and have the desire to check out my website. www.jfkballistics.com

I have some decent videos and stuff there that you might be interested in. If not that's fine too.

Best to you my friend,

Mike

Lee,

Thanks for giving the stuff a read. I will have to look into the FLASH a bit more, do you have a source for information?

No worries on the z and s thing. I wear out my spell check anihoe lol.

Mike

I've given them to you already but I understand how slow you are on the uptake:

James Hosty 'Assignment Oswald'

John Newman 'Oswald and the CIA'

The question I would like you to answer is this. Oswald apparently goes to Mexico City. The information collected by the CIA on this "Oswald" in Mexico City is about to be sent to the FBI. He's visited the Cuban Consulate requesting a visa. He has visited the Russian Embassy requesting a visa. He is denied at both as he wants it immediately. He apparently meets with Valery Vladimirovich Kostikov (Officer in Charge of Western Hemisphere Division 13 that includes assassinations). He leaves and returns to Dallas.

The information that was due to be sent regarding this little excursion from the Mexico City CIA Office to the FBI would have blew the lid on any assassination attempt, because the minute the SS and FBI started planning the Kennedy trip Oswald would have been lifted off the streets and kept in custody while JFK was in Dallas. However, all of this would only happen if Oswald's FLASH remained on his FBI file. It didn't. It was removed on October 9th. The memo from the CIA came in on October 10th. Perfect timing eh Mike?

I'd like to know, from an 'Oswald Did It' mindset, why you think this happened? It could only happen if it was planned and it could only happen if pretty powerful CIA personnel were pulling the strings. Oswald couldn't remove himself from the security watch could he?

How do you reconcile this with the 'Oswald was a madman' approach?

Lee

Rather simply.

He was a madman and deserved a FLASH be attached. Why would anyone drop the ball like this? Its a good thing those men were punished.

Was the slow on the uptake comment really necessary? Check your undies again...they may be bunching.

Is this forum member actually polishing a gun? What is it about this forum that seems to attract extreme right wing nut-jobs? Why do they feel at home here? Why is there so many of them? And more importantly why do other folk engage with them?

You really don't need to know any more about Mr Mike Williams than he chooses to portray himself on an assassination forum brandishing a gun. If it isn't a gun (maybe it's a set of curtain rods!) then I apologise. But reading his posts...full of spite, venom and nastiness (but no research) and that picture becomes even more complete.

I guess we just have to accept that some people feel a desperate need to defend money, authority, privellege, and power, even though they themselves have none. After all in 1945 when their country was reduced to rubble and millions were either dead or dying there were 1,000's of Germans, and others, who still defended the Nazis! Some continue to this day. Even now some still steadfastly refuse to accept that millions of Jews were gassed. It's just "do-gooding liberals" peddling a nasty myth. And there's "no proof"!...sound familiar?

This is the mentality we are up against!

Not that in any way am I suggesting our gun-toting friend is a holocaust denier or a Nazi supporter. They just share that same dull-brained "can't learn - won't learn" attitude to anything that smacks of taking a swipe at authority.

At it's best this forum has produced some fascinating and truly inspired research. Unfortunately it all to no avail. Anyone new to this subject will be repulsed and demoralised with the constant trolling by folk who clearly have an alternative agenda.

Whoa there Nellie,

If you just took the 30 seconds it takes to read Mike's bio, you'd see that the reason he's pictured with a gun is because he spent the last couple of decades as a marine sniper and his main area of interest in the JFK case is - understandably - the ballistics.

Not because he's a "extreme right wing nut-job."

Martin

Martin,

You are exactly correct, and thank you very much. Those who know me would also know that while I love making holes in paper, I abhor unnecessary violence. I also absolutely hate the left and right equally. Both appear to have the agenda of setting this Country firmly down the crapper. Martin your fairness, in light of our disagreements speaks volumes, and for what its worth your stock just went up. Not just because you backed me, but because your fairness is honorable.

Thank you,

Mike

No probs, Mike,

Hopefully you'd do the same for me!

You know, I get really tired and bored of the insults and snide remarks JFK researchers feel the need to make when they can't make another see things from their own point of view. The fact that you're a "LNer" and I'm a "CTer" doesn't mean we can't get along does it? I wish more people could realise that being civil doesn't cost a penny and it's ok to disagree.

Martin

Martin,

Indeed you are right! I believe you and I had a disagreement not long ago, and ironed it out quite well.

I wonder why the likes of Laverick will never understand that a sniper actually preserves life. I think to many people watch far to much television. 98% of the job is simply scouting, and denying the enemy communications, read shooting transmission antennas, denying the enemy transportation, read shooting vehicles. It is far better to set 20 men afoot than to kill just one.

If you deny mobility and communication, leadership becomes worthless.

In the few instances that you do engage a human target, you do so to protect lives. In my opinion, taking the life of an enemy is well worth saving the lives of many others.

I suspect Mr. Laverick will say that nothing is worth the cost of a human life, but then again, I wonder if he would say that as someone was shooting at his friends.

Martin, I sincerely thank you for your civility, you are an asset to the community!

Mike,

You talk of enemies as if they all fit some universally agreed paradigm. When you say "enemy" you mean people who are fighting Americans! To some people in this world Mike YOU are the enemy...

A German sniper in WW2 would have undoubtedly decided that American GI's were "the enemy" and therefore legitimate targets. Or doesn't this rule apply to other nationalities' snipers? Do you see where that leads us all?

Now let me put this straight. I absolutely love America and in the main I love Americans: you are the creative engine of the world. I also respect the many sacrifices made by millions of ordinary Americans over the years, particularly its heroic role in helping rid the world of fascism. But...

"...as someone was shooting at his friends." Mike the reason they were shooting at your friends was because they obviously percieved you as their enemy. It's not rocket science. Invade someone else's country or interfere with their internal affairs or blockade, sanction and bomb...trust me, that will create a lot of enemies.

Let's suppose the Chinese army decide to invade Tibet (again!) no doubt ordinary Chinese soldiers will be treated as the enemy by resisting Tibetans. In that scenario Mike who do you think would be the enemy? The Chinese Army or the people resisting them?

Bernie,

For me, I was not afforded the luxury of determining who the enemy was from a political stand point. So my answer is much simpler. The enemy was simply anyone that posed a direct threat to myself or my men. I guess that deserves an explanation. I enlisted in 1984, with much patriotism in heart. 17 years old and as naive as one could be I suppose. I didn't know politics, and frankly did not care. In 1989 I received my first reality check in Operation Just Cause. War, and it's true impact became a reality. During JC, I lost two friends, and quickly realized the futility of war. I think this set the course for the rest of my career. During Desert Storm, the realities really set home, and it set my course in concrete. I realized that men may join the military for patriotism, but patriotism and politics soon go out the window when the rounds start coming in. I think it was at this point that I made a determined decision that I would stay in the military. I felt that there would be nothing I could ever do to prevent a war, but there just might be something I could do to, at the very least, insure my men, or at least as many as possible, would come home safe. Then came Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 93.

It was really my first opportunity to be a part of a conflict that I felt actually aided a civilian population.

Then in Iraqi Freedom my personal objective was to safeguard American lives. Period.

War in reality is a useless and needless thing. It emphasizes the faults of man, and the enemy in any arena, is war itself.

I entered the military with patriotism in mind, and stayed with the men in mind. I knew I was good at what I did, and knew that what I did, while taking lives, helped secure life as well. Violence in any venue is useless and needless.

Im sure this is not quite the answer you expected from a violent right wing nut, but it is what it is.

I hate politics, and have little use for politicians. But I love the things America stands for, or at least, is meant to stand for. I believe in the corp values, as futile as that may be.

I do hope that next time you see someone with a weapon in a photo that you are not so quick to jump to a conclusion about them. I maintain that just because I happened to have been in a violent occupation, does not mean I support violence.

Be well

Mike

Now that we're acting all civil and such...

Mike, have you ever been involved in a recreation of the Dealey Plaza scene whether it be with a superior weapon or with a similiar one?

Do you think YOU could accomplish what so many professionals couldn't... it would go a long way in proving your point about it being possible in the face of so many who say it isn't.

and please let's not talk about the recreations the "government" did with stationary targets and different distances and timings on the shots... although the ones they did showed how often the gun jammed... but we're not going there, here...

Since this is your area of expertise.. I look forward to hearing about the work you've done personally.

Thanks

DJ

David,

Actually this was proposed to me a short time ago, and I work for a company on a large tract of land. I am also a big R/C enthusiast, so I think I could do something here. I have been giving it some serious thought.

Its funny that you mention a gun jam, as this is an issue in hurrying shots with a bolt gun. They call em short cycles and I really need to get something written about this as the dented shell is a classic case.

To date, and some time ago, I did have a go at stationary targets from 60 feet up and ran 333 3 rounds, 3 hits, 3 seconds. I did this with my Remington 700 short action, but did not have a Carcano at the time.

Should I decide to do a full on recreation I would insist that an honorable member of the CT crowd be front and center to confirm no foolery. It would take some time and cash to do, and I surely would not want someone just to blow it off as a hoax. Besides they would get a few days in sunny Florida!

I might also add that I have done a thorough examination of the FBI tests and wrote an article that might surprise you.

www.jfkballistics.com/rifleconditionscopepage1.html

Mike

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Who said he displayed malice? You don't have to be derogatory to display the behaviours of an intitutionalised racist? You are such a goon. By your methodology, slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't do anything wrong either? You muppet!

I'll tell you what Mike, if you squeeze an orange hard enough you get orange juice. Squeeze a Lone-Nut hard enough and you get BS...

...has DVP been given you tips from the "Lone Nut Field Manual: How to ignore the issue and suggest the other side are loonies"

Where did I say that Brennan was "In On It"?

Now Now Lee, is this the way a highly educated man with multiple degrees operates....oh .....wait....Are you using Fetzer as a roll model? HAHAHAH!

I dont see that Brennan was displaying any type of racism, he is simply saying he is not good at recognizing black folks. How is that racist there LEE?

Please explain to me, how lack of malice has anything to do with the slave keepers of the former centuries. Did Brennan abduct a black man and keep him hostage far from home? Force him to work back breaking labor for nothing, and beat him if he refused?

Are you really comparing Brennan to a Slave Owner?

Now you have to be kidding me?!

What is it with you "critical thinkers"?

Its a good thing your undies are marked yellow in the front and brown in the back, or you would get that on wrong as well!!

How epically hilarious!!!!!!!!

Mike. Institutionalized racism means that the person displaying the behaviour or attitude doesn't believe they are doing anything wrong because the behavious have become "institutionalised."

You know? The way slave owners didn't think they were doing anything wrong for nearly 200 years? Is that simple enough for you or do you want some time to go run it by Dave?

Suggesting that "all black people look the same" is racist, no matter what way you look at it. And in most progressive societies it is something that just isn't said in good company.

Try making the suggestion "that all black people look the same" to a representative of a HR department in a local organisation any time soon.

And thanks for the tip on the "undies" because I had mine on back to front...

Lee,

I about bust when I read the undies comment man what a great reply! Made my day!

Anyhow, I do know what Institutionalized racism is and in fact can spell it correctly most days. However I do not think Brennan was guilty of this. Hell to me most white folks look alike. He was simply saying he has a hard time telling black people apart.

Our HR person at work just happens to be black and oddly enough has told me all us white guys look alike lol.

What is an organisation? Do you mean organization?

Well you never did say you had a degree in writing lol.

Mike

The minute the mind stereotypes an object Mike (inanimate, animate or concept), it is putting it into categories of things similar and things dissimilar. It's fine when you walk into a room and your unconscious mind arranges furniture into these categories very quickly so it can make sense of your environment but become problematic when you let "it" do it to people.

Institutional racism in Howard Brennan's comments exists in the fact that he "thinks" all "black people look the same" when in actual fact they don't. I can tell the difference between Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Jarman in the Dillard photo. And the fact of the matter is Brennan even claims that he outdone himself by recognising these two individuals after they were "out of his sight." So what his "mind" told him was "true" was in fact "false."

Saying that "all people of a certain race" look the same is a very lazy "mind" talking and reduces people from being unique individuals with unique characteristics into stereotypes and groups.

By the way, your witness is still a xxxx...

...and in my opinion he is a racist.

And an "organisation" is the proper "English" way of saying the "English" word "organisation."

Lee,

He is not a xxxx, and certainly there has been no proof of being a racist, and your English spell checker sucks, mine said you spelled it wrong!

If you get a chance check out my article about the scope and the firing pin. There has to be SOMETHING we can agree on. LOL

We get at each other pretty good sometimes, but I do enjoy the challenge of debating you.

Mike

Mike

He is so. If you asked me to do ABC and I told you I couldn't because of XYZ but later you found out that I could

do ABC and the reason I didn't was because of DEF. Then I would, by definition, be a xxxx.

When people lie, they tell a truth.

I asked you about Oswald's FLASH removal and you threw it back at me. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

I've started reading your piece and will finish it tonight. I've even started writing something. It's a reply to the very short "piece" by Paul May on your website. I will remain neutral in my criticism of "him" but will certainly be tearing into his "theory" with a wrecking ball.

I never said Brennan was a hood-wearing member of the KKK but he was certainly displaying a racist attitude in what he said, whether he knew it or whether he didn't.

Lee

P.S. Mike, us English don't get on well with the letter Z. We use an 'S' instead...

Lee,

Thanks for giving the stuff a read. I will have to look into the FLASH a bit more, do you have a source for information?

No worries on the z and s thing. I wear out my spell check anihoe lol.

Mike

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Who said he displayed malice? You don't have to be derogatory to display the behaviours of an intitutionalised racist? You are such a goon. By your methodology, slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't do anything wrong either? You muppet!

I'll tell you what Mike, if you squeeze an orange hard enough you get orange juice. Squeeze a Lone-Nut hard enough and you get BS...

...has DVP been given you tips from the "Lone Nut Field Manual: How to ignore the issue and suggest the other side are loonies"

Where did I say that Brennan was "In On It"?

Now Now Lee, is this the way a highly educated man with multiple degrees operates....oh .....wait....Are you using Fetzer as a roll model? HAHAHAH!

I dont see that Brennan was displaying any type of racism, he is simply saying he is not good at recognizing black folks. How is that racist there LEE?

Please explain to me, how lack of malice has anything to do with the slave keepers of the former centuries. Did Brennan abduct a black man and keep him hostage far from home? Force him to work back breaking labor for nothing, and beat him if he refused?

Are you really comparing Brennan to a Slave Owner?

Now you have to be kidding me?!

What is it with you "critical thinkers"?

Its a good thing your undies are marked yellow in the front and brown in the back, or you would get that on wrong as well!!

How epically hilarious!!!!!!!!

Mike. Institutionalized racism means that the person displaying the behaviour or attitude doesn't believe they are doing anything wrong because the behavious have become "institutionalised."

You know? The way slave owners didn't think they were doing anything wrong for nearly 200 years? Is that simple enough for you or do you want some time to go run it by Dave?

Suggesting that "all black people look the same" is racist, no matter what way you look at it. And in most progressive societies it is something that just isn't said in good company.

Try making the suggestion "that all black people look the same" to a representative of a HR department in a local organisation any time soon.

And thanks for the tip on the "undies" because I had mine on back to front...

Lee,

I about bust when I read the undies comment man what a great reply! Made my day!

Anyhow, I do know what Institutionalized racism is and in fact can spell it correctly most days. However I do not think Brennan was guilty of this. Hell to me most white folks look alike. He was simply saying he has a hard time telling black people apart.

Our HR person at work just happens to be black and oddly enough has told me all us white guys look alike lol.

What is an organisation? Do you mean organization?

Well you never did say you had a degree in writing lol.

Mike

The minute the mind stereotypes an object Mike (inanimate, animate or concept), it is putting it into categories of things similar and things dissimilar. It's fine when you walk into a room and your unconscious mind arranges furniture into these categories very quickly so it can make sense of your environment but become problematic when you let "it" do it to people.

Institutional racism in Howard Brennan's comments exists in the fact that he "thinks" all "black people look the same" when in actual fact they don't. I can tell the difference between Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Jarman in the Dillard photo. And the fact of the matter is Brennan even claims that he outdone himself by recognising these two individuals after they were "out of his sight." So what his "mind" told him was "true" was in fact "false."

Saying that "all people of a certain race" look the same is a very lazy "mind" talking and reduces people from being unique individuals with unique characteristics into stereotypes and groups.

By the way, your witness is still a xxxx...

...and in my opinion he is a racist.

And an "organisation" is the proper "English" way of saying the "English" word "organisation."

Lee,

He is not a xxxx, and certainly there has been no proof of being a racist, and your English spell checker sucks, mine said you spelled it wrong!

If you get a chance check out my article about the scope and the firing pin. There has to be SOMETHING we can agree on. LOL

We get at each other pretty good sometimes, but I do enjoy the challenge of debating you.

Mike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_WFMYjyhMI&feature=player_embedded

While far from being a firearms expert I do have enough experience firing weapons with friends to know that simultaneous shots, or nearly so, can be mistaken for one shot easily. When one takes into consideration the acoustics of Dealey Plaza, the various locations of witnesses, the real possibility of spotters and radio controlled volleys and sound suppressors the number of shots is very difficult to determine imo.

Herb,

With all due respect silencers are really a bunch of hooey. Even with today's technology suppressors on high powered rifles still emit sound over 100dB. In an area the size of DP there is hardly a need for radio volleys etc. A well laid plan is a single shooter, well trained and armed.

We have no evidence of any of that.

Mike

Mike,

I only mentioned silencers because they have been brought up in the past. I do not believe they would have been employed for various reasons, but wouldn't rule them out. Some have postulated pistols were involved, which considering the distances from certain points is a possibility I assume. And they can be more effectively silenced. The other points I raised are what makes the number of shots unanswerable in my opinion. There is some evidence that supports teamwork. If a well laid plan is a single shooter, well trained and armed then it makes sense to me thattwo or more of the same would incresae the odds of successs. If the planning is done professionally, then I wouldn't think the chances of being caught would increase significantly. The quote, and I may be paraprhasing "if you set out to kill the king, you better make damn sure you're successful" always rang true for me if it was a group of powerful conspirators, which I believe.

Herb,

The amount of skill to make a pistol shot like this is far above the skill one would need with a rifle. It is an error to believe that pistols are more effectively suppressed. This comes from all the silencers we see in movies and in military history, they are, almost exclusively .22 caliber. With an HPR the increase in caliber also makes an increase in noise with a silencer. If we are to consider that a .308 is a significant rifle, then we have to consider that a .380 pistol is not. Even though the pistol is larger caliber.

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Who said he displayed malice? You don't have to be derogatory to display the behaviours of an intitutionalised racist? You are such a goon. By your methodology, slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't do anything wrong either? You muppet!

I'll tell you what Mike, if you squeeze an orange hard enough you get orange juice. Squeeze a Lone-Nut hard enough and you get BS...

...has DVP been given you tips from the "Lone Nut Field Manual: How to ignore the issue and suggest the other side are loonies"

Where did I say that Brennan was "In On It"?

Now Now Lee, is this the way a highly educated man with multiple degrees operates....oh .....wait....Are you using Fetzer as a roll model? HAHAHAH!

I dont see that Brennan was displaying any type of racism, he is simply saying he is not good at recognizing black folks. How is that racist there LEE?

Please explain to me, how lack of malice has anything to do with the slave keepers of the former centuries. Did Brennan abduct a black man and keep him hostage far from home? Force him to work back breaking labor for nothing, and beat him if he refused?

Are you really comparing Brennan to a Slave Owner?

Now you have to be kidding me?!

What is it with you "critical thinkers"?

Its a good thing your undies are marked yellow in the front and brown in the back, or you would get that on wrong as well!!

How epically hilarious!!!!!!!!

Mike. Institutionalized racism means that the person displaying the behaviour or attitude doesn't believe they are doing anything wrong because the behavious have become "institutionalised."

You know? The way slave owners didn't think they were doing anything wrong for nearly 200 years? Is that simple enough for you or do you want some time to go run it by Dave?

Suggesting that "all black people look the same" is racist, no matter what way you look at it. And in most progressive societies it is something that just isn't said in good company.

Try making the suggestion "that all black people look the same" to a representative of a HR department in a local organisation any time soon.

And thanks for the tip on the "undies" because I had mine on back to front...

Lee,

I about bust when I read the undies comment man what a great reply! Made my day!

Anyhow, I do know what Institutionalized racism is and in fact can spell it correctly most days. However I do not think Brennan was guilty of this. Hell to me most white folks look alike. He was simply saying he has a hard time telling black people apart.

Our HR person at work just happens to be black and oddly enough has told me all us white guys look alike lol.

What is an organisation? Do you mean organization?

Well you never did say you had a degree in writing lol.

Mike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_WFMYjyhMI&feature=player_embedded

While far from being a firearms expert I do have enough experience firing weapons with friends to know that simultaneous shots, or nearly so, can be mistaken for one shot easily. When one takes into consideration the acoustics of Dealey Plaza, the various locations of witnesses, the real possibility of spotters and radio controlled volleys and sound suppressors the number of shots is very difficult to determine imo.

Herb,

With all due respect silencers are really a bunch of hooey. Even with today's technology suppressors on high powered rifles still emit sound over 100dB. In an area the size of DP there is hardly a need for radio volleys etc. A well laid plan is a single shooter, well trained and armed.

We have no evidence of any of that.

Mike

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Who said he displayed malice? You don't have to be derogatory to display the behaviours of an intitutionalised racist? You are such a goon. By your methodology, slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't do anything wrong either? You muppet!

I'll tell you what Mike, if you squeeze an orange hard enough you get orange juice. Squeeze a Lone-Nut hard enough and you get BS...

...has DVP been given you tips from the "Lone Nut Field Manual: How to ignore the issue and suggest the other side are loonies"

Where did I say that Brennan was "In On It"?

Now Now Lee, is this the way a highly educated man with multiple degrees operates....oh .....wait....Are you using Fetzer as a roll model? HAHAHAH!

I dont see that Brennan was displaying any type of racism, he is simply saying he is not good at recognizing black folks. How is that racist there LEE?

Please explain to me, how lack of malice has anything to do with the slave keepers of the former centuries. Did Brennan abduct a black man and keep him hostage far from home? Force him to work back breaking labor for nothing, and beat him if he refused?

Are you really comparing Brennan to a Slave Owner?

Now you have to be kidding me?!

What is it with you "critical thinkers"?

Its a good thing your undies are marked yellow in the front and brown in the back, or you would get that on wrong as well!!

How epically hilarious!!!!!!!!