Mike Williams

Maybe they realigned the scope? As far as the suspension is concerned - I'm making an assumption - I'm not a firearms expert Mike, nowhere near being one, but I was posing a hypothetical. If you were going to a range with a MC rifle would you sight the scope before you went and then leave it on the back seat of a car (in a brown paper bag) and expect it to fire perfectly on its first shot? Or would there be a likelihood, however small, that the scope may have to be readjusted and realigned? For the record, I have no problems with the FBI timings, but I'd be more impressed (and interested) if they'd have been shooting at a moving target from the actual sixth floor window for their tests... Lee, Actually they were firing the rifle to test if for accuracy "as is". It shot remarkably well. I do not think at this point they were trying to recreate the event. I appreciate your honesty about the assumption, I wish more were as forthright as you are. My military rifle and scope rode in my hummer for days , and I had little concern for its accuracy. However, I also was very careful to make sure it was secure and unharmed. Mike

Once one looks at and comprehends the ballistic evidence, one will stop wasting time with such foolishness as a knoll shooter. Of course it does keep the goldfish, who gobble up any flake thrown to them, occupied and out of the way of real research. Some people are so easily fooled.

I've been interested in the events since I was 15 years old Mike. My Dad got me onto it when we had 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' aired for the first time in the U.K.. I got seriously into it, buying the books, hunting down old journals and the like when I was 18-19. I was obsessed with it till about the age of 25 and then kinda went onto other things. In my early 30's I picked the books and my notepads back up. For the last 3 years, outside of looking after my young daughters and being a husband, has been my number one interest and passion. Lee Oswald, the real man behind the one dimensional WC portrait, is what I'm truly interested in. I know this guy was innocent Mike. Set up by JJ Angleton and a combination of Texas moneymen and the Military. He was moved around a chessboard thinking he was a knight when he was, unfortunately, just a pawn. Lee Lee, Thanks for sharing that. I myself have been researching about 3 years only and much of that on other things. As you know I am mostly interested in the ballistics. As you might also know I own www.jfkballistics.com. If you are ever interested in writing an article on Oswald I would love to have it on my site. I post all kinds of things from all sides of the debate. Not just ballistics. All I ask is that if it has ballistics in it that it be accurate. So anyhow just thought I would offer. Mike

Pat, That is some good stuff right there!

Careful there Davey your common sense is showing. I could sure give the GK shot more weight if you could offer some physical evidence of it happening. So please add that to the list of things you are uselessly yammering about, but can not prove. Brennans own words: "I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn’t going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn’t absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him." So you accept what some witness tells a researcher who you cant even remember, but disregard the words right from the horses mouth? So.....are you going to support any of your positions with anything resembling evidence at all? I get a kick out of kooks like you who cherry pick without evidence and then try to use some little tidbit to prove a point. Here is your list again in case you've lost it: That people were killed for saying more than 3 shots. That the paraffin tests clear Oswald. That Brennan never identified Oswald. That the Carcano was crap. That there were 38 auto shells at the Tippit killing. Quit trying to squirm out of it and give us what you have in the way of evidence. I'm betting you don't have anything other than a wild imagination.

Eh, its no bother to me really I dont post here much anyhow. This forum has really changed in the last couple years. Seriously going down hill.

This format is horrid. It looks aweful and is odd to use.

So let me get this right. You discredit Brennan as hearsay, and just a few posts ago try to sell me some "facts" based on what a witness told a researcher? Even though the words are from the man's own book? Your kidding me right? Is this what you call research? Classic CT cherry picking. Now that is funny! Since you like to have the evidence to support your statements, how about supporting these: That people were killed for saying more than 3 shots. That the paraffin tests clear Oswald. That Brennan never identified Oswald. That the Carcano was crap. That there were 38 auto shells at the Tippit killing. Can you offer anything in the way of evidence to support any of this? Ill be waiting.

I would think you would want someone who would follow the evidence without prejudice. That's exactly what I do. Thats why I dont support the WC nor the CT crowd. I think BJ just posted a doc that might help ya. I knew this card existed Mike and I knew Brennan's name was added to the bottom saying that he "also" attended this line-up. The document reaks. Now read his testimony that you place so much importance on. How many people did Brennan say were in his line-up? Lee Why would the card reak? Its actually irrelevant to anything. Testimony is documentation enough.

I would think you would want someone who would follow the evidence without prejudice. That's exactly what I do. Thats why I dont support the WC nor the CT crowd. I think BJ just posted a doc that might help ya.

Yep sure does prove he failed to identify, on 11/22/63. However this proves WHY, and gives a positive ID. There is no doubt about that! "I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn’t going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn’t absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him." Oswald on a platter no matter how you look at it! However thanks for the doc on Brennan.

Is it normal police procedure in your country to keep records of people who have attended line-ups Mike? If so, can you point me in the direction of Howard Brennan's line-up records please? Reports from the officers conducting it? Time, date, names and statisitics of the people who were in the line-up? Photographs of the the people used during the line-up? I don't accept Howard Brennan's testimony as being truthful. You know, the way you don't believe Roger Craig's testimony? If testimony is good enough for you why don't you, or the likes of DVP, believe what Craig said to the Warren Commission? Or perhaps Arnold Rowland's testimony of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor at the same time? If there were half a dozen others who backed up Brennan's statements and testimony then I'd agree with you and let the records slide. Unfortunately, there aren't half a dozen others. There's ONLY Brennan. He's the only one your side has got. The only one. Amos Euins doesn't help your cause much. Rowland throws a spanner in the works and was shafted by the WC. Brennan said in his affidavit that the man who was shooting was wearing light coloured clothing and was in his early 30's. Is this truthful? He said the man he saw wasn't in a hurry to leave the snipers nest. Is this truthful? He said he saw the whole barrel of the rifle but didn't see a scope. Is this truthful? He said he saw the shooter from the waist up. Is this truthful? I'd really like you to back up his testimony with some solid evidence of him having attended a line-up with Oswald. If not, then forget him as a witness...because I don't believe he EVER attended a line-up. If you were on a jury, would you expect to see this sort of stuff? If not, I hope to God I never end up being prosecuted for something and see you sitting there looking at me... Regards Lee Lee, Can you please show me when Rowland saw BOTH men at the same time? He never said that at all, so why would you conjure up such a thing? And while your at it, please support that with documentation. Surely Police where you come from would have kept records of such a thing! The difference between Brennan and Craig should be obvious to you. The fact that it is not, is disturbing and would seriously make me question your ability to examine evidence. But one thing at a time, and how about those Documents for Rowland? I hope you can find some! I'll trade you them for Brennan's Mike... ...apologies for some slight mistakes I'm making but I'm in work and sneaking these posts in during breaks. I hope you don't hold them against me but I'll make sure I reply more fully when I get home. Lee, Sorry to derail, but I have a message for you. Would you do me a favor? If possible, let Lee F., (member of both forums) know at the education forum, I have on file a photo of Robert Brown with Sturgis and de Joseph per his thread. If he is interested he can contact me directly at johnw291@yahoo.com I'm not allowed to post at that forum. johnw Mike

Is it normal police procedure in your country to keep records of people who have attended line-ups Mike? If so, can you point me in the direction of Howard Brennan's line-up records please? Reports from the officers conducting it? Time, date, names and statisitics of the people who were in the line-up? Photographs of the the people used during the line-up? I don't accept Howard Brennan's testimony as being truthful. You know, the way you don't believe Roger Craig's testimony? If testimony is good enough for you why don't you, or the likes of DVP, believe what Craig said to the Warren Commission? Or perhaps Arnold Rowland's testimony of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor at the same time? If there were half a dozen others who backed up Brennan's statements and testimony then I'd agree with you and let the records slide. Unfortunately, there aren't half a dozen others. There's ONLY Brennan. He's the only one your side has got. The only one. Amos Euins doesn't help your cause much. Rowland throws a spanner in the works and was shafted by the WC. Brennan said in his affidavit that the man who was shooting was wearing light coloured clothing and was in his early 30's. Is this truthful? He said the man he saw wasn't in a hurry to leave the snipers nest. Is this truthful? He said he saw the whole barrel of the rifle but didn't see a scope. Is this truthful? He said he saw the shooter from the waist up. Is this truthful? I'd really like you to back up his testimony with some solid evidence of him having attended a line-up with Oswald. If not, then forget him as a witness...because I don't believe he EVER attended a line-up. If you were on a jury, would you expect to see this sort of stuff? If not, I hope to God I never end up being prosecuted for something and see you sitting there looking at me... Regards Lee Lee, Can you please show me when Rowland saw BOTH men at the same time? He never said that at all, so why would you conjure up such a thing? And while your at it, please support that with documentation. Surely Police where you come from would have kept records of such a thing! The difference between Brennan and Craig should be obvious to you. The fact that it is not, is disturbing and would seriously make me question your ability to examine evidence. But one thing at a time, and how about those Documents for Rowland? I hope you can find some! I'll trade you them for Brennan's Mike... ...apologies for some slight mistakes I'm making but I'm in work and sneaking these posts in during breaks. I hope you don't hold them against me but I'll make sure I reply more fully when I get home. Lee, No worries on the slight mistakes, I make my share for sure. The point I was making is testimony IS documentation. That's why they keep records of such. Interestingly enough, I am sure there is a document that says Brennan did not id Oswald, otherwise why would the WC have known to ask him about it? However if you strike Brennan for lack of documentation, then you will have to so the same for Rowland and many others. Point is testimony IS documentation. By the way, if you dont mind my asking, how long have you been researching the assassination, and what is your particular area of interest?

Bill, What an ignorant question to ask Brennan, I agree. The potential to have excluded such a witness, by doing just such a thing is crazy. Unfortunately for you most of that testimony had to be taken with a grain of salt. Or at the very least considered very carefully. We all know how unreliable witness testimony is, and of witness testimony look at the statistics on timing and time recall. So for someone to say they saw them 3-4 minutes later, in reality it could have been seconds. Brennan as well fits this in saying the man hung out and was in no hurry. I am rather surprised you would put as much stock into this as you seem to. Mike

Is it normal police procedure in your country to keep records of people who have attended line-ups Mike? If so, can you point me in the direction of Howard Brennan's line-up records please? Reports from the officers conducting it? Time, date, names and statisitics of the people who were in the line-up? Photographs of the the people used during the line-up? I don't accept Howard Brennan's testimony as being truthful. You know, the way you don't believe Roger Craig's testimony? If testimony is good enough for you why don't you, or the likes of DVP, believe what Craig said to the Warren Commission? Or perhaps Arnold Rowland's testimony of seeing an elderly black man on the sixth floor at the same time? If there were half a dozen others who backed up Brennan's statements and testimony then I'd agree with you and let the records slide. Unfortunately, there aren't half a dozen others. There's ONLY Brennan. He's the only one your side has got. The only one. Amos Euins doesn't help your cause much. Rowland throws a spanner in the works and was shafted by the WC. Brennan said in his affidavit that the man who was shooting was wearing light coloured clothing and was in his early 30's. Is this truthful? He said the man he saw wasn't in a hurry to leave the snipers nest. Is this truthful? He said he saw the whole barrel of the rifle but didn't see a scope. Is this truthful? He said he saw the shooter from the waist up. Is this truthful? I'd really like you to back up his testimony with some solid evidence of him having attended a line-up with Oswald. If not, then forget him as a witness...because I don't believe he EVER attended a line-up. If you were on a jury, would you expect to see this sort of stuff? If not, I hope to God I never end up being prosecuted for something and see you sitting there looking at me... Regards Lee Lee, Can you please show me when Rowland saw BOTH men at the same time? He never said that at all, so why would you conjure up such a thing? And while your at it, please support that with documentation. Surely Police where you come from would have kept records of such a thing! The difference between Brennan and Craig should be obvious to you. The fact that it is not, is disturbing and would seriously make me question your ability to examine evidence. But one thing at a time, and how about those Documents for Rowland? I hope you can find some!

Sure thing, A quote from Brennan's Book: "The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, “Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?” He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say." Second man from the left. Sounds like a line up to me. It also appears in his WC testimony. Mike So, your evidence is Brennan's say so? Do you have any "documents" that would prove to a Court and a Jury that Brennan attended a line-up? Lee Well I would say his testimony would be enough. We also have his affidavits, sworn testimony. I should think that would stand up. Are you actually telling me that sworn testimony is not evidence that can be evaluated?

When did the person who used it on the Sixth Floor have a chance to sight the scope Mike? Given the timeframes we have? Lee Oh and P.S. Mike Williams: "I have far more respect for that than I do the "Oswald is innocent at all cost" crowd, who lack any credible common sense at all." That would include me. A bit insulting. Don't you think? Lee, That's rather odd. I myself would not have placed you into that group. While I do know you think the man was innocent, I have not as yet read anything that was ridiculous nor outlandish from you, in an attempt to make the point. This is what I mean when I say the "Oswald innocent at all cost" faction. I am unsure what you mean by "chance to sight in the scope". It could have been done long in advance. There was no need, near as I can tell, for Oswald to have removed the scope from the rifle. As long as he did not remove it, then the scope/barrel relationship would remain intact. Mike Mike, I don't understand your definition "...at all costs" then? If he's guilty then he's guilty and if he's innocent then he's innocent. I don't just feel that he's innocent, I KNOW that he innocent and I'll fight that corner "...at all costs." The rifle; if "whoever" sighted the scope prior to placing it in the non-existent "brown bag", that would have been too small for the damn thing even if it did exist according to BWL's testimony, are you saying that on the back seat of Frazier's old truck there was no chance that it would have moved slightly? I'm sure the suspension on the piece of junk that Frazier drove was about as good as its engine. Lee Lee, I have no doubt you would defend what you believe. But would you do so at the cost of common sense and your own integrity? Of course not. I have read some of the most outlandish trash from many who have, and do. I do not place you in that crowd. Back to the scope. How can you be "sure" of the suspension? What do you base this on? Frazier had a car, best I recall, not a truck. At any rate. If this were the case and the scope had been misaligned at the time of the assassination, then how did the FBI manage to shoot groups like this only 5 days later? How did they manage to do so with an average time of 6 seconds for 3 shooters?

Sure thing, A quote from Brennan's Book: "The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, “Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?” He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say." Second man from the left. Sounds like a line up to me. It also appears in his WC testimony. Mike

When did the person who used it on the Sixth Floor have a chance to sight the scope Mike? Given the timeframes we have? Lee Oh and P.S. Mike Williams: "I have far more respect for that than I do the "Oswald is innocent at all cost" crowd, who lack any credible common sense at all." That would include me. A bit insulting. Don't you think? Lee, That's rather odd. I myself would not have placed you into that group. While I do know you think the man was innocent, I have not as yet read anything that was ridiculous nor outlandish from you, in an attempt to make the point. This is what I mean when I say the "Oswald innocent at all cost" faction. I am unsure what you mean by "chance to sight in the scope". It could have been done long in advance. There was no need, near as I can tell, for Oswald to have removed the scope from the rifle. As long as he did not remove it, then the scope/barrel relationship would remain intact. Mike

John, Anything for you buddy! Mike

Its a large pattern John. So large in variance that I am positive all 3 of my rifles would replicate it. I can look into this a bit and let you know. My buddy Colin did a study on this and I think I can get some diagrams from him. Mike

Bill, I would say the same thing to someone I could not hold my own with. I have an idea, why dont you debate DVP there Bill? Im sure it would be very informative lol Mike, you're good with guns and ballistics, but not so good when you try to put the guns in Oswald's hands, as your bias slips in. As for debating DVP, there's nothing to debate. He would have to continually check with his hero's bible Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, which he tells us was originaly going to be called Final Verdict, but they can't seem to put the final nail in Oswald's coffin. It's easy to follow the planted evidence that frames Oswald The Patsy, but as soon as you latch on to it, you're distracted long enough to let the real assassins slip away. DVP would never come here to join in the debate for the same reasons Dale Myers and the rest of those YoYos won't, because they would be exposed for what they are. Just read his gushing review of Bugliosi: http://blogs.myspace.com/davidvp1961 DVP makes a nice summary for those who can't take the time to read the whole thing, but in the course of chasing Ozzie the Rabbit into the Maze, Bugliosi falls back on Capt. Fritz, the man on the scene - and like all suit and tie prosecutors, the Bug must rely on the cops to make his case. And they do. And read the Bug saying how great the Dallas PD were, especially Capt. Fritz, in putting the case against Oswald together so quickly. Ah yes, Captain Fritz. Fritz the Cat on the trail of Ozzie the Rabbit, right off the bat. And DVP wonders how Conspiracy Theorists can imagine Capt. Fritz as part of any conspiracy, by golly, that's rediculious. All Fritz has to do is go up to the Sixth Floor at about 1 PM, and within fifteen minutes he has the three shells in hand, the rifle by the strap, and Oswald's name is given to him by Truly, so what else does he need to go on? He then heads back to his office, after stopping by to pay his respects to his old good buddy Sheriff Wild Bill Decker, and by the time gets to homicide there's Oswald sitting right there in a chair waiting for him. And then the White House calls and says "You have your man." Yea, whose calling the shots here? The investigation is over. We're going to debate DVP, Bugliosi and Myers et al by solving the crime and exposing the conspiracy before their 10 part TV show comes out, and that will end the debates once and for all. The Final Verdict is not yet in. BK I appreciate you mentioning my work. I do put much into it. The point of my initial post was to share a good laugh, nothing more. The only reason I quoted DVP, beside the fact that I like the guy, is because he was the one who found Harris moronic blunder. I would have loved to have found that. I really dont understand why the CT side has such an issue with DVP, except that he makes most look like fools. I dont agree with him on many issues, but for the most part he is a hell of a good resource. I have far more respect for that than I do the "Oswald is innocent at all cost" crowd, who lack any credible common sense at all. Now were one to dig into Harris video, I am sure more blunders would be found. Frankly Bob bores me. His theories are so ridiculous, that they are just a bump above James Files. By the way Bill, glad ya like the ballistics stuff, I got a whopper coming up for you on the scope. Turns out it was not defective at the time of the shooting and was in fact sighted in rather well! Mike

John, Not sure what you mean by "improperly ejected" are you talking short cycle like I mentioned earlier? I suspect he may have ejected the shells to reload. The man just shot the President, and a Dallas cop and was effecting an escape. Id reload too. Yes, the short cycled one, thank you, Mike. OK, would you reload on the spot after giving the coup de' gras or run and reload? Who is the first to note the ejected shells, presumably by swivelling the revolving bit and pointing gun up on the spot? Did anyone see this happen? John, A short cycle is cleared just like any other round, simply pull the bolt back. Ejection patter would be the same. Yes there was one man who saw him eject the shells from the pistol. Benevides (sp?) There may have been more, but I recall him saying he picked them up. This is a strong indication that the officer who made the "auto" statement did not pick them up and made his statement based on the fact that he could see them on the ground, just as if an auto had fired them. Mike

Speaking of parroting, your replies to me in the other thread are far from original. Do you ever do any of your own work, or do you just gobble up what others feed you?

John, Not sure what you mean by "improperly ejected" are you talking short cycle like I mentioned earlier? I suspect he may have ejected the shells to reload. The man just shot the President, and a Dallas cop and was effecting an escape. Id reload too.