Mike Williams

Run away buddy Run AWAY! LOL

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

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.

He states clearly in his book he received a telephone call at home "at 7:15pm" on the 22nd November and was told he was to be picked up and driven to City Hall to attend the lineup. In his testimony he stated, CLEARLY, that he was picked up and driven to the lineup at City Hall at 6.00pm. Your witness is worthless. Less than worthless. He'd have been laughed out of every court in the Western world and he'd have been torn a new one by any half-decent defense attorney. You tried to undermine the testimony of Jack Dougherty in a previous thread by claiming he couldn't tell the time and was geographically challenged. Well, you know what? Brennan couldn't count. Brennan couldn't remember the color of his "lineup" attendees skin. AND Brennan COULDN'T tell the time. Oh and a racist to boot. Your double standards are here on this board for all to see Mike. You are perhaps worse than David Von Pein. At least you know where you stand with the likes of him. You however, are playing mind-games with people on here with your flip-flopping between wanting to have an open mind and displaying a fully closed one. You can cling and cling to your lying and racist witness and I can keep coming up with more and more to undermine him... Lee Lying and Racist Witness? Are you kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHAH! No. What's so funny? The fact that you are willing to toss a significant memory for an insignificant one. Of all witness testimony time accuracy is the least accurate followed by numeric accuracy. You really should read a study on how the brain operates under stress. Mike Now you're making me laugh. I have a Psychology degree and two postgraduate degrees you're asking me to read a study on "how the brain operates under stress?" Not only did you, as you regularly do Mike, get the wrong end of the stick concerning what I was refering to about Brennan's racism but you're also guilty of making massive assumptions you're so quick to accuse others of. I don't discuss ballistics Mike, if you'd like an argument about cognitive processes and behaviours then I'm game... All those degrees and no idea of what minor and major memories are? I'd get a refund! HAHAHAHAHAHH!

Point 1. Lying. He was asked to identify Lee Harvey Oswald at a line up. He said he couldn't be sure and didn't pick him out. Later he said he could pick him out but thought he may have been influenced by seeing Oswald's picture on TV prior to the showup. He then claimed he didn't pick him out because he was afraid for him family's life because the communists might come to get him. FACT: He lied. Doesn't matter why he lied. He lied, so is therefore a xxxx. As Montaigne said "Lying is an accursed vice." Point 2. Racism. Mr. BELIN: Is there anything else now up to the time you got down to the Dallas Police Station? Mr. BRENNAN: Well, nothing except that up until that time, through my entire life, I could never remember what a colored person looked like if he got out of my sight. What he is outlining above, in 2010 societal terms, is RACISM. He is a racist, diplays racist thoughts and articulates racist stereotypes. He is therefore a racist. So you want to stick that in your bong and smoke it eh laughing boy? 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"?

He states clearly in his book he received a telephone call at home "at 7:15pm" on the 22nd November and was told he was to be picked up and driven to City Hall to attend the lineup. In his testimony he stated, CLEARLY, that he was picked up and driven to the lineup at City Hall at 6.00pm. Your witness is worthless. Less than worthless. He'd have been laughed out of every court in the Western world and he'd have been torn a new one by any half-decent defense attorney. You tried to undermine the testimony of Jack Dougherty in a previous thread by claiming he couldn't tell the time and was geographically challenged. Well, you know what? Brennan couldn't count. Brennan couldn't remember the color of his "lineup" attendees skin. AND Brennan COULDN'T tell the time. Oh and a racist to boot. Your double standards are here on this board for all to see Mike. You are perhaps worse than David Von Pein. At least you know where you stand with the likes of him. You however, are playing mind-games with people on here with your flip-flopping between wanting to have an open mind and displaying a fully closed one. You can cling and cling to your lying and racist witness and I can keep coming up with more and more to undermine him... Lee Lying and Racist Witness? Are you kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHAH! No. What's so funny? The fact that you are willing to toss a significant memory for an insignificant one. Of all witness testimony time accuracy is the least accurate followed by numeric accuracy. You really should read a study on how the brain operates under stress. Mike

David, my study of the eyewitnesses suggested the last shot or sound came from west of the TSBD. My study had also suggested that no shooter was seen in that area, however. I also had concerns about the smoke several witnesses saw on the knoll. This led me to wonder if someone had exploded a firecracker in the area. I gained confidence that this was indeed the case after reading some U.S. Army publications from WW2, which told of German and Japanese snipers using firecrackers as diversionary devices. A sniper would fire from one location, light a long fused firecracker, and then make his way to another location. While opposing forces closed in on their former location, the snipers could either escape or take a second shot from a new and unexpected vantage point. If there were shooters in the TSBD and Dal-Tex, having someone light a firecracker on the Elm Street extension behind the knoll would have been quite helpful in diverting attention from their locations. Pat, Those types of devices are still in use today. Generally we call them stoppers. If you have an intended and well protected target, you can engage them while in the open. Using a device like this causes them to pause, and diverts the attention of the protectors. FWIW. Additionally we insure these make smoke, lingering smoke, and of course a pretty fair bang! Now does that not sound like that happened on the knoll? Imagine that....and from some fanatical LN to boot LMAO!

David, my study of the eyewitnesses suggested the last shot or sound came from west of the TSBD. My study had also suggested that no shooter was seen in that area, however. I also had concerns about the smoke several witnesses saw on the knoll. This led me to wonder if someone had exploded a firecracker in the area. I gained confidence that this was indeed the case after reading some U.S. Army publications from WW2, which told of German and Japanese snipers using firecrackers as diversionary devices. A sniper would fire from one location, light a long fused firecracker, and then make his way to another location. While opposing forces closed in on their former location, the snipers could either escape or take a second shot from a new and unexpected vantage point. If there were shooters in the TSBD and Dal-Tex, having someone light a firecracker on the Elm Street extension behind the knoll would have been quite helpful in diverting attention from their locations. Pat, I often find myself in the physical aspect of the shooting and not the testimony as significantly. Is it possible in your opinion that the witnesses are hearing an echo, or bounce back from the head shot, and in fact, not a second true shot? I note that you quote them as "near" witnesses, and can not help but wonder if there was a bounce back off the overpass, if this is what they heard? Thoughts? Mike

Here is another article for you about the firing pin, and why they were reluctant to dry fire the rifle. Ill check back here for questions or feel free to email me anytime at Mike@JFKBallistics.com Enjoy, Mike http://www.jfkballistics.com/rifleconditionfiringpin.html

double post sorry

Just posting this for those who have an interest. You will notice that the "interpratation" sections are in a questions and answers format, this is to allow the article to be added to as questions and answers arise. This is for the benefit of future readers. I will check back here time to time for questions, or you can email me at Mike@JFKBallistics.com Enjoy, Mike http://www.jfkballistics.com/rifleconditionscopepage1.html

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!

He states clearly in his book he received a telephone call at home "at 7:15pm" on the 22nd November and was told he was to be picked up and driven to City Hall to attend the lineup. In his testimony he stated, CLEARLY, that he was picked up and driven to the lineup at City Hall at 6.00pm. Your witness is worthless. Less than worthless. He'd have been laughed out of every court in the Western world and he'd have been torn a new one by any half-decent defense attorney. You tried to undermine the testimony of Jack Dougherty in a previous thread by claiming he couldn't tell the time and was geographically challenged. Well, you know what? Brennan couldn't count. Brennan couldn't remember the color of his "lineup" attendees skin. AND Brennan COULDN'T tell the time. Oh and a racist to boot. Your double standards are here on this board for all to see Mike. You are perhaps worse than David Von Pein. At least you know where you stand with the likes of him. You however, are playing mind-games with people on here with your flip-flopping between wanting to have an open mind and displaying a fully closed one. You can cling and cling to your lying and racist witness and I can keep coming up with more and more to undermine him... Lee Lying and Racist Witness? Are you kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I like to learn. Can you post, or provide a link to the proof? Duncan, I would urge you to watch the video I made on this subject. After you see it, perhaps you can provide some answers that other LN advocates have not. http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/10/HKwqhf0MYio and part two, http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/9/SQDp8tBJhC4 Duncan, I would urge you to watch it as well. Everyone should view an assumptive comedy on a nice Sunday Morning!

The summary is not too inspiring, IMO. It sounds like Mr. Martin just decided to write a book presenting his (apparently untested) theories. Still, hopefully the book will make some points and present some fresh arguments... I couldn't agree more. Anyone claiming that he has a technique to trace the source of bullet trajectories in the Zapruder film, using anything more than basic geometry is pitching pure voodoo science. This is reminiscent of the guy (forgot his name) who claimed he could see "bullet trails" in the film. Robert, How very right you are there, with one exception. A bit of geometry and a bit of trigonometry is all it takes to at least get you in the ball park. However these methods are far more valuable in eliminating shooting positions than proving them, but certainly once many are removed only a few remain.

Thanks for being civil Mike. I stood in the line up. The witnesses came out one at a time accompanied by a detective. Nothing was spoken. The woman walked along the line, and placed her hand on one of my shoulders. That's it. Duncan Duncan, I kind of figured it was something like that. So apparently because the line up was not conducted the way Farley thought it should be, then you are a xxxx? Lee, Is this the statement you make that you consider asking Duncan how the line up was conducted? If you were asking for clarification, then why would you be making statements about him "rebuilding his reputation". You did not even have enough evidence to attack his credibility at that time, and already had your assumption in place. Once again Farley makes an assumption that leaves him with much egg on his face. Are you willing to prove the the line up Duncan was in was some sort of fabrication? Or are you going to judge Duncan the same way you do everything else? With your "assumption" in hand? No wonder you struggle so with the evidence. You don't seem to waste time with ridiculous things like facts, before you jump to conclusions. How very.....typical of Farley. I'm going to watch the World Cup. While I'm away... ...seeing as how you like dealing with facts... ...why was Oswald's FLASH removed? You deal in facts so well you hadn't even heard of this fact before I brought it up for you to answer. Some researcher. You don't even know the case. Why dont you tell us why it was removed. I would love to read, and destroy another of your ASSUMPTIONS. I wonder how the world of research will turn if you ever actually address a fact.

Thanks for being civil Mike. I stood in the line up. The witnesses came out one at a time accompanied by a detective. Nothing was spoken. The woman walked along the line, and placed her hand on one of my shoulders. That's it. Duncan Duncan, I kind of figured it was something like that. So apparently because the line up was not conducted the way Farley thought it should be, then you are a xxxx? Lee, Is this the statement you make that you consider asking Duncan how the line up was conducted? If you were asking for clarification, then why would you be making statements about him "rebuilding his reputation". You did not even have enough evidence to attack his credibility at that time, and already had your assumption in place. Once again Farley makes an assumption that leaves him with much egg on his face. Are you willing to prove the the line up Duncan was in was some sort of fabrication? Or are you going to judge Duncan the same way you do everything else? With your "assumption" in hand? No wonder you struggle so with the evidence. You don't seem to waste time with ridiculous things like facts, before you jump to conclusions. How very.....typical of Farley.

I didn't attack a witness, Bill. I attacked Beverly Oliver. Duncan Duncan On the "David Josephs, A Question for You" thread, you relayed a story about your own experiences of taking part in a police line-up. You stated you were paid money to attend and it was concerning a face slashing incident (bus driver). The reason you shared this "story" was to try to undermine my own conclusion that Howard Brennan did not attend a police lineup on 22nd November 1963. There are a wide variety of reasons that has resulted in me reaching this conclusion but the two that were were being discussed when you shared your story were: he couldn't remember the number of people taking part in the lineup (4) and he couldn't remember whether there were any black people in the lineup (0). You stated that during your own experience you could see all of the witnesses as they were paraded through to make their identification of who they thought the slasher was. You claimed that the only witness you remember is a "woman" who wrongly chose you. The problem with your story is that police lineups are run where the witnesses CANNOT be seen by the people on the other side of the glass or curtain. This is quite obviously done to protect them. With this in mind can you explain to members of the forum whether: a. this lineup took place in a town or city where these long held rules and procedures are not followed? or b. you made up this story to to try to undermine my posting without thinking it through and leaving a hole big enough to steer the Queen Mary through? Before you continue "attacking" any "witnesses" or potential "witnesses" in the JFK case can you please rebuild your own credibility on this forum by explaining the bizarre and unbelievable story you shared yesterday in an effort to undermine me please? Thanks Lee I have no desire to communicate with someone who brands me as a potential xxxx. I've told my true story, take it or leave it. But it's okay for you to call Beverly Olivers a xxxx? BK And it's ok for you to say that I called Beverly Oliver a xxxx, when I said no such thing in my post? Duncan It's never overt. Always subtle. But if it looks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog and barks like a dog you can usually bet good money that it's a dog. Unless of course one would not be able to recognize a dog should it bite one on the keister. Farley would of course be able to explain to us the exact procedure the DPD used for Line ups, circa 1963, before continuing further addressing any other assumption he may make. For the fact is Lee does not know exactly how the line up Duncan was involved in was held, he assumes that it would have been done as he has seen on countless reruns of Barney Miller, however this is not how it may have been conducted at all. This is exactly why so many have issues with the evidence, they assume, before they research. He is prepared to label Duncan a xxxx based on an assumption! Is anyone even the slightest bit surprised? Lee, Rather than just jump to an assumption, why not ask Duncan how the line up he participated in was conducted? Gather information then run your gator. I suspect if I am correct there may have been no glass or curtain, and the witnesses may have even been walked right in front of the suspects. Some regions really do mean it when they say "confront your accuser". I have myself witnessed many "road line ups" when a victim is asked to identify an individual simply by pointing them out, and not always with the cover of the tinted glass of a squad car. Moral of the story is, gather evidence so that when you accuse someone you are not left looking like a fool. SO Duncan now you have my curiosity up. How was your line up conducted?

So lets see. In Harris theory the initials of Bell, turn out to be that of Fritz when turned over! Hilariously stupid error in my book. SO Bill, Perhaps you would like to prove another part of the theory for Robert, since he so obviously cant. Can you prove there was anything erased and written over? Can you prove any of his other ridiculous assumptions? Step on up. Everyone gets a swing at the ball! Mike Hi Mike, That was all Jimmy D speaking, not me. I just posted it for him. But he seems to make sense. Although we don't have to think in terms of the fake trail they had in London or a hypothetical trial of Oswald, we can still take this to court while going after the real killers. Sorry, I can't follow this chain or hardly any of the chain of custody of any of the evidence. All the chains seem to break at the first few rungs and I don't think its because of the incompentency of the Dallas cops. I think they did it on purpose. Now looking at this just briefly, you mean to tell me that there even is/was an envelop that contained a bullet and two to four fragments taken from Connally, and all the people who handled this envelop signed their initials to it just like they do on CSI Miami? But nobody knows who the nurse was who started the chain? I get the part where the cop delivers it to Fritz's office, but he doesn't know who he gave it to there? And then we have Fritz's signature initials on it, upside down. And Von Pain quotes a Warren Commission doctor who actually had the fragments in hand who, when asked if they weighed more than what was missing from CE399 actually responds with the size, and says they weighted as much as a postage stamp? How much does a postage stamp weight, and how much is missing from CE399? BK The average stamp weights about a gram, or 15 grains. We know that 399 has much less loss. However a grain is 1/7000th of a pound. I hardly think we can determine anything conclusively by what anyone guessed, considering the minute weight involved. I think the most 399 could weigh is 162. Loss from firing .4-.6 grains. So that leaves us with 161.5 potentially (using the average of .4 to.6) Found it weighed 158.6 so it would have a loss of no more than 2.9 grains. As you know Bill I am hardly one to support the SBT, at least not yet. So I really have no dog in this race. I still can not help but bust a gut when I see the Robert "upside down" Harris make such gross assumptions, just to have it blow up in his face. Since I have no communication with Jim DiEugenio Please pass on to him, that if he wished to include me in a conversation, to please have to stones to step up to the plate here himself and speak directly to me. I have little respect for a man who feels the need to go through another to make a simple post. If he cant stand his own ground, then he should refrain. What do you mean what the average stamp weighs? Can't they weight bullet fragments? Is that how you determine ballistics, compare the weight of bullet fragments to average postage stamps and then weight the stamp to see how much the bullet fragment weighs? What kind of investigation is that? And if you have such little respect for a man who feels the need to go through another to make a simple post, who can't stand on his own ground, then why did you bring a donkey like Barron Von Pain to a dog race? BK Bill, I was not the one who compared the fragments to the stamp, a doctor did. I in fact proposed that this was not an accurate method, in that the weights are very minute. This should clearly tell you that I would not investigate that way at all. I only addressed it at all because you asked the question: Now as for DVP. It was not I who tried to claim that DVP agreed to the erasing on the envelope, Harris did. I simply corrected his error, yet again, in showing that DVP was not in fact in agreement. What is the issue here? I was not speaking for DVP, nor posting for him. I was simply relating, yet again, another piece of fabrication by Bob Harris. I would hope that if someone misrepresented me, you would do the same. I know that if someone horribly misrepresented you, of totally fabricated a statement, and tried to pass it off as your words, I would certainly stand up for you even if I did not agree with you. I never in my life stated that Von Pein "agreed to the erasing on the envelope". I said at that point in time, that he never disputed it. PLEASE stop misrepresenting me. And anyone who denies that the CE842 envelope was erased and altered, just doesn't have all four wheels on the ground. Look closely at this envelope which I posted for both you and David a long time ago in the other forum, http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg This could not have been the same envelope that Bell filled out and initialed. And it could not have been originally labeled as containing multiple fragments. Not only did the DPD list it in their inventory as containing a single frag but Frazier testified to the WC that it only contained one as well, which was probably a somewhat mutilated bullet. And it is obvious, that the person who wrote in "fragments" was not the same person who filled out the other information on the envelope - despite the fact that Bell said she filled it out by herself. And I don't think any rational person can avoid doubts about the initials that are on that envelope. The alterations and erasures made it worthless in a court of law and Fritz would never have signed off on such a thing. Initials are easy to copy. Give me 10 minutes and I will give you a good duplicate of any of them. Von Pein's argument is that two secret service agents just forgot to initial CE-399 and then nurse Bell just forgot to initial the CE842 evidence envelope. And I'm still waiting for his excuse for why Todd's initials disappeared from CE399. What you guys don't get is that when Hoover said "the public must be convinced" that Oswald acted alone, he meant it. Are you sure you read Hoovers document correctly? Perhaps you needed to flip it over! :tomatoes

First off I can not imagine how you could say that I have no evidence that the rifle was sight in at 400 yards, when I just dropped the evidence in your lap. Now I am not trying to be pointed here Pat, I happen to think very highly of you, but do you really just not understand trajectory? It really comes down to this. If we have a bullets weight(161grains), shape (Ballistic coefficient.283), and speed (velocity2165fps), we can then have a determined and irrefutable trajectory pattern. We have exactly that pattern, represented by the 400 yard zero table that I posted for you. The distances that Frazier shot at 15 and 25 yards give us a determined amount of rise, how far the bullet rose between those two distances, that amount of rise is replicated in the 400 yard zero trajectory. In short, If they had fired the weapon at 400 yards on 11/27/63, they would have blown the middle out of it. That's pretty significant evidence. Your other error here is that I have a predetermined theory or scenario that I am trying to support. The fact is I did, right up until the time I evaluated the evidence and it told me specifically that my theory was incorrect. So you see while I was trying to support something, this study showed me it had no support. I am not trying to support anything. I simply reported what the evidence shows. I have not evaded any issue with the Army and the shims. I have no doubt that when they had the weapon it may have needed shims. This has been my point all along. When were those shims needed? It certainly was not on 11/27/63, one look at the groups they shot will tell you that, or at least it should. The very first mention of damage to the scope is on March 16th, 1964 by Frazier when they tried to use it at Quantico. Do you really believe that Frazier would have failed to mention the damage during the discussions of earlier tests if the damage had in fact existed at that time? Of course he would have. I think here is where we need to understand that there are two separate issues involved here. One is instability, or the inability of the scope to maintain its "settings" for the lack of a better word. This is absolutely due to construction, and is in fact inherent in all scopes. An excellent article to read by Chuck Hawks describes this well and can be found here: http://www.chuckhawks.com/sight-in_rifle.htm The second issue has nothing to do with the first. It is alignment. It differs in that if you have bad alignment, you could shoot a very tight group, because the scope was stable, but, you could never get that group into the center of the target. When Frazier talks about the construction, he is referring to stability, an inherent issue with all scopes of this design, as we can see in the Hawks article. However when he says: Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope? Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged. He is addressing the issue of alignment. The reason he was unable to adjust the crosshairs for elevation sufficiently is because the scope, at this point, was damaged in some manner that caused a misalignment in the barrel/scope relationship, which had nothing at all to do with the inherent stability issue. I do note that Frazier says that the scope had a scrape/damage, "When it was received in the laboratory". I wish he would have been more clear about when it was received, or better phrased, which time it was received, as this rifle sure made its rounds, no pun intended. Correct. Frazier is saying that the scope had not been recently damaged, and was firing in a rather stable fashion on 11/27/64. This does address stability. Here Frazier is talking about alignment. The alignment issue could be because " the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted". Which of course can be attributed to the damage he noticed in that the "back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged. " In other words, the front of the scope is to low. Causing one to have to lift the muzzle to align the scope with the target, and put the muzzle then at an angle which would cause the bullet to strike high. What could have caused this, as there was no great error in alignment on 11/27/63? The "back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged. " There is also this: Not at all. What he is saying here is that the mount is far enough off that it will not allow the crosshair adjustment to compensate for the misalignment. Which of course was not first discovered until March 16th, 1964. What Frazier is saying is that the rifle fired high on the first targets on 11/27/63, which of course it would have unless you tend to believe that the weapon was only zeroed for 15 yards. You completely misunderstand what he is saying here. The only way that a shot would not hit high at 15 yards is if the rifle were sighted in for 15 yards, which of course is ridiculous. As for the claim, by you, that the scope was not in proper alignment, this is completely proven false in that it was in fact in perfect alignment had the rifle been sighted in at 400 yards. Alignment is certainly relative to the position that you are shooting at. You can verify this yourself with a ballistic calculator. Use the specifications for the Carcano, and run shots at 100 200 300 400 and 500 yards. The one uniformity is that you will ALWAYS see shots high at 15 yards. The only way, once again, that you would not see shots high at 15 yards, is if you specifically sighted in the weapon for 15 yards. Misalignment would be shown by gross inaccuracy. Something we do not at all see exhibited with this weapon. This is not at all what he is saying. What Frazier is explaining is the same thing I have been, in regard to the lift and fall of a ballistic arc. Where do you see Frazier say that he thinks the furthest it would be sighted in 600 feet? I read that nowhere above. 600 feet is the furthest distance he uses in his explanation of trajectory, nothing more. In point of fact what Frazier says, in your own typing which I have underlined, is that the MINIMUM it would be sighted in for is 150 to 200 yards. There is no indication of Frazier at all of what distance he believed it was sighted for.

So Duncan, what you are saying is... ...if you ever see someone shooting the President of the United States from a Sixth Floor window WE should, by your own admission, not believe anything you "might remember" about the height, weight, hair color, clothing, sex and even skin color of the person you claim to have seen because you have an extremely poor short and long term memory. Thanks for clearing that up. My confusion now is, after explaining to us the falliblity of human perceptions and memory, are you expecting us to believe that Howard Brennan remembered what Lee Harvey Oswald's face looked like after seeing it for a couple of seconds from 110 feet away? Lee P.S. "WTF" must have been what Lee Oswald was saying to himself when people started picking him out in "error" too Lee, I didn't say anything that you attribute to me. I gave you my story and that was it. I will say however, that I believe Brennan could have seen the shooter, but I don't believe that he could have seen enough of him to positively identify him as Oswald. I believe that he could have seen the third shot fired, but I also believe that is humanly impossible for him to have also seen the impact of the third shot, as he said he had done. For that reason alone, I would discount him as a reliable witness. Duncan I find it interesting that the one person you remember was the one directly involved with you, in that she picked you. This proves my point exactly. Why should Brennan have remembered how man where in the line up? He was looking for one, specific person, that he had direct tie to, in that he had seen this person before. Why would he remember anyone else who was irrelevant? In a similar manner, the one person you remember was relevant in that she fingered you! Perfect assimilation Duncan. Mike Mike Complete nonsense trying to square up (assimilate) Duncan's experience with that of Howard Brennan's. I don't know what type of lineups you're thinking of here but all lineups that are conducted fairly are done where the people in the lineup CANNOT SEE the witness on the other side of either a one-way: i) Curtain or ii) Window Maybe you are thinking of lineups that are perhaps conducted in Somalia or Salem, MA in 1692? Lee P.S. Your comment "Why would he remember anyone else who was irrelevant?" (Sic) I've explained the very simple process of lineups to you already. You're still adamant that your witness shouldn't have to remember how many people were in the room. My answer to that is, so what? You want everyone to believe that Brennan could, from 110 feet away on a bright noon day and at an upward angle, remember Oswald's face, clothing, height, weight and hair color - but he couldn't remember that there were four people in his "lineup"? Four? With number's painted over their heads? And Oswald was number two? And he would have been asked to look up and down at all four of them before making a decision? That he didn't make...and the fact that they were all white was also lost on him? In Dallas, in 1963, he didn't know if there were any black people in his lineup? Give me a break? The man was obviously an institutionalised racist, and he couldn't remember if there were any "negroes" in the lineup? The reason he can't remember these things is because he wasn't there... Of course he could see him from 110 ft. That's how he was able to identify him, and know it was Oswald as he so clearly states in his book. Its pretty simple.

So Duncan, what you are saying is... ...if you ever see someone shooting the President of the United States from a Sixth Floor window WE should, by your own admission, not believe anything you "might remember" about the height, weight, hair color, clothing, sex and even skin color of the person you claim to have seen because you have an extremely poor short and long term memory. Thanks for clearing that up. My confusion now is, after explaining to us the falliblity of human perceptions and memory, are you expecting us to believe that Howard Brennan remembered what Lee Harvey Oswald's face looked like after seeing it for a couple of seconds from 110 feet away? Lee P.S. "WTF" must have been what Lee Oswald was saying to himself when people started picking him out in "error" too Lee, I didn't say anything that you attribute to me. I gave you my story and that was it. I will say however, that I believe Brennan could have seen the shooter, but I don't believe that he could have seen enough of him to positively identify him as Oswald. I believe that he could have seen the third shot fired, but I also believe that is humanly impossible for him to have also seen the impact of the third shot, as he said he had done. For that reason alone, I would discount him as a reliable witness. Duncan I find it interesting that the one person you remember was the one directly involved with you, in that she picked you. This proves my point exactly. Why should Brennan have remembered how man where in the line up? He was looking for one, specific person, that he had direct tie to, in that he had seen this person before. Why would he remember anyone else who was irrelevant? In a similar manner, the one person you remember was relevant in that she fingered you! Perfect assimilation Duncan. Mike

The summary is not too inspiring, IMO. It sounds like Mr. Martin just decided to write a book presenting his (apparently untested) theories. Still, hopefully the book will make some points and present some fresh arguments... Pat, I tend to agree with ya there. How can one offer a complete study of velocities etc, of the weapons used, when only one has any physical evidence involved? I think it will be an epic string of assumptions. Im still working on a reply for you, but there is something in it that I have to reconcile, or frankly abandon my position, in part. One little key piece of evidence is missing and I need to have it cleared up. I sure appreciate the pleasant conversation and debate Pat, these exchanges do tend to be the most productive, and obviously you have a far better grasp of the material than most. Mike

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

And I agree with you. It SHOULD. But in very many areas of this case, it doesn't. CE399 and CE573 are in good, or should that be bad, company. Lee So in fact both of you claim that witness testimony should take a back seat to physical evidence, and then accept the testimony over the evidence. Impressive.....no.....really.... Mike, You know, I understand your position but I cannot fathom why Texas Police officers would describe the bullet as steel jacketed and why a carrer army officer who held the bullet in his hand would agree if in fact it was copper jacketed. The simple fact of the matter is that no proof exists that CE573 was the actual bullet found at the scene. The only evidence we have is a police report that describes a different type of bullet. If you've got a reasonable explanation then fell free to share it. Look, it's the same situation as the autopsy photos of the head where almost every witness we have corroborates each other in a way that completely contradicts the photos. Who or what do we believe? If 20 people told you that they saw me yesterday morning wearing a red shirt and I gave you a picture of myself wearing a blue one would you say that all 20 people were mistaken and/or colorblind? Of course you wouldn't. You'd say that the picture was taken at another time or that I switched shirts. Because people are often mistaken in their recollections but not in a uniform, corroborative manner. Take care, Martin Martin, I will look further into the Walker bullet, as you have peaked my interest. I would like to see how that evidence washes out for myself. Thanks again Martin! Mike