Mike Williams

Interesting how you put that "for a variety of reasons" I wonder if his reasons included the fact he felt betrayed by the DPD, or possibly was in fear? How about this from Brennan's own 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. 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." I knew I could identify him, if they needed me later! Sounds like Brennan saw Oswald in that window. Now I wonder why you did not elaborate on "for a variety of reasons" So where was he DURING the assassination. You readily admit you have him located just before, and just after. Rowland does in fact see a dark complected man in the window at about 12:15, as I recall. He also sees a gunman, which rather fits Oswald's description, but he never sees the both at the same time. So you have Oswald accounted for till say 12:20, and then again at 12:31. This does not rule him out at all. As far as someone telling a researcher something, come on, you don’t really believe hearsay like that iss going to fly do you? I am not a CT. I don’t bite that easily. Paraffin eh? Your kidding me right? You do of course know of the unreliability of this test. Let me refresh for you by asking you to read what Cunningham had to say in WCH3p487. "And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands." And then Further: CUNNINGHAM: Yes. We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts. EISENBERG: So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek? CUNNINGHAM: That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions. Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492): EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek? CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter. I find it interesting that you would try to use something that is inconclusive, as an indication of exoneration. Note I said interesting, not surprising. Yes I have read these claims before. Pure rubbish, and spewed by people who have no idea what they are talking about in regard to firearms. To answer your question, yes, I do think a 20 year old firearm with a partially loaded clip (which is irrelevant) could have done the deed. Now I don’t know exactly what you mean by "non-existent" clip. There is documented proof the clip was in the TSBD. I also assume in talking about the firing pin, you are referring to it showing signs of much use? Imagine that a war rifle showing signs of use. I also suppose you are going to quote that they were afraid to dry fire it because they feared breaking the firing pin. I hear this often, and it is comical. You are aware of the fact that you never dry fire a weapon with this type of pin design aren't you? The reason is, that even if the pin is BRAND NEW, you run the risk of breaking it. They were not afraid to dry fire it because it was defective, they were afraid to because that is standard firearms knowledge. Its also the reason these were made to allow gunsmiths, like myself, to test fire weapons and have a striking surface for the pin: Now a word about the scope. You do realize that it was in very good firing order on 11/27/63 when the FBI tested it? In fact they fired six rounds that made a keyhole in the target!: Of course these rounds were fired at 15 yards. Someone with no knowledge would jump all over that, but what they fail to realize is this is a strong indication that the scope was in fact zeroed in at 400 yards. More about this to come. As for the ridiculousness of the dented shell. Of course it could not have been fired dented, but it sure could have been dented after. Its called a short cycle. I have done it many times, and have seen it done by others. It is simply, not pulling the bolt far enough back to eject the shell, then when you run the bolt forward it hits the chamber lip. Here are a pile of examples: What you would fail to realize is that in the day pistols were automatics, and revolvers were well revolvers. Another epic case of someone not knowing what they are talking about. People who murder with revolvers generally don’t hang around long enough to eject the shells. It is perfectly logical for the officer to assume they were autos, just because they were laying around on the ground. There is no indication that he picked them up and examined them before making the statement. I dare say, can you find the auto and the special in this illustration? So you see David, once you apply a little common sense, and actually know what you are talking about things become far more clear. So I would have to give you some advice, based on the advise you gave me. I do my research, thats why is it so easy to debunk foolish theories like to ones you propose. Stop parroting someone elses work, your obviously not an idiot, stop being lazy, and do your own work. Things will become clear for you as well.

Really? You dont say? You obviously have never read anything I have done in making your moronic assumptions, why am I not surprised?

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

David, I pasted this from another post, so as not to detract from that thread. I would like to offer you the opportunity to qualify the remarks and offer some support for your position on this, because I believe there are some fundamental errors within. Can you expand a bit on your reasoning for the above claims? Mike So Mr. The Crowd goes wild I notice you avoided this like the plague, so how about putting up or shutting up? Want to actually try to qualify these remarks, or just continue to run aimlessly at the mouth?

Then Jim should have no issue coming on this forum and debating me outright on the frontal head shot. I would love to see that. So how about it. Time to put up or shut up.

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.

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.

Thanks Bernice. It certainly does say that he was Private First Class. WHich means that somewhere along the line he was promoted for the second time. As I recall, PFC was a rating awarded for completion of basic training (boot camp). I had Navy boot training right next door to the San Diego Marine boot camp. As a navy "boot", I had the rating of Seaman. On completion of boot camp, all of us became Seaman First Class. Technically it is a promotion...but in reality, it is the lowest rating (other than trainees or boots). I still have my navy "boots" (leggings) that give trainees their name. So if LHO was PFC, that is the LOWEST rating other than trainee, so is not a "promotion". Incidentally, the word "RANK" is used only for officers. All enlisted men have RATINGS, not ranks. Jack When the military went over to the "E" for enlisted pay grade system, a PFC in the Army was pay grade E-3 while in the USMC PFC was pay grade E-2. The Corps used pay grade E-3 for Lance Corporal. Most branches handed out E-2 after 4 or 5 months of service...in the Coast Guard we got E-2, which was Seaman Apprentice out of boot camp. Having fell down the ladder a few times myself, they usually gave you back a stripe (grades E-2,3) after 30 days of good behavior. Jack, I still have the "Fair Play for Oswald" T-shirt I bought from you at the old ASK conference in 94. That would be correct. There are only a few Marines handed PFC from basic, generally for excellent performance. I myself made the trip to PFC and back a couple times. Generally for very small infractions punished under the UCMJ, non-judicial punishment. After about 30 days my stripe was given back (both times lol). I would also not that I know that once one retires, or leaves honorable, you can actually retain the rank/title. Such as R Lee Ermy, who is to this day called Gunny. I am less certain about and undesirable discharge. Mike

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

Another complete fabrication by Harris. DVP said exactly:"You can't prove any initials were "erased". You just want to believe that. And even if something was erased, you can't prove that such action was conspiratorial in nature. Can you, Bob?" --- DVP; 05/19/10 SO now that we all realize that Harris simply examined the evidence up side down, which is funny as all get out, we see that he can not even be relied upon to tell the truth regarding a simple exchange. I dont know about anyone else, but I for one and not surprised.

Perhaps for the same reason they fingerprinted Oswald twice. Also I thought Fritz kept one in his desk and that only 2 went to the FBI.Maybe he kept the dented/short cycled one?. Ian, That would be correct. Tony, Perhaps he used a different method the second time. I dont know but that is interesting.

It's just something we'll never know Mike. We can never, ever, know if all of the watches and clocks used to time stamp information were fast, slow or accurate. I just didn't get your comment about 1963. It read like watches and clocks were less reliable in 1963. If that was what you meant? I know they didn't use sundials so variations in times given are going to only be wrong in terms of the odd minute forward or backward surely? We would hope that all public service officials such as paramedics and police officers in any city know the importance of ensuring your watch keeps good time... Lee, I was meaning by what standard the watch was set. This was a time when atomic clocks and such were still in their development. It was not as simple as turning on your cell phone to get an accurate satellite time etc. Even by todays standards I bet you would find a majority of watches that are not accurate.

Sure, it would show a consistency in pattern for THAT rifle. Which does not reflect at all on the actual rifle, which could in fact have a completely different pattern. Unless we could test the actual rifle, the results we would have would not yield any relevant comparison information.

David, I pasted this from another post, so as not to detract from that thread. I would like to offer you the opportunity to qualify the remarks and offer some support for your position on this, because I believe there are some fundamental errors within. Can you expand a bit on your reasoning for the above claims? Mike

Jack, If you and I NEVER agree on ANYTHING else, we surely do on this! You Sir are spot on with every syllable. Mike

John, The issue is that different rifles may eject differently. Even the same make and model. Certainly different shooter could have an effect as well. Anything that we tested would not be worth diddle. The best tests in my opinion are the ones done with the MC in evidence. At least that was with the same weapon.

The clip was still in the rifle. Interesting thoughts, let me look a bit more into this and see what I come up with. Looks as though those fellas might have been about as good at telling time, as they were anything else. Pretty shoddy performance all in all, to say the least.

As well, Mike, do you have any spent MC cartridges to do some experiments with? John, I do have some cartridges, and a Carcano as well. The ejection pattern is documented in the WC, as well as the HSCA if I recall correctly. Mike

Let me read through this a bit and try to make hide nor hair of this time line. On the envelope with the casings it would have been Sims who recorded the time and date, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with Boone? If the first record of transmission about the shells is t 1:11, then why do you believe they were found at 103 or 104? Do you really think that they would have waited almost 10 minutes to transmit this information?

Mike. That's poor. That's very very poor. Why would that be poor Lee? If in fact we are using the watch as a time stamp to verify important events, should we not consider the accuracy that represents? Of course we should.

Bernice, Many thanks for your contributions. Reading through the above you see the huge amount of contradictions between the Tom Alyea version of events and the Dallas Police and Sheriff's Department version of events. I was interested in the comment ".. crime scene peolpe who did not see the original positioning because they were not called upon the scene until after the rifle was found nearly an hour later." An awful lot of law enforcement people would have had been lying for this to be true! With regards to general timing of events, I was interested to find that the evidence envelope that contained the three spent cartridges had a time written on it. As I said in my article, when Captain Fritz saw the rifle he told Detective Sims to go and get Lieutenant Day to photograph the weapon. Sims found Day and helped him to get the spent cartridges fingerprinted and put into an evidence envelope. The two men then returned to where the rifle was found. Lieutenant Day testifed to the Warren Commission that the date and time that Sims took charge of the envelope was written on the envelope. He told them that the writing says: November 22, 1963, 1:23pm This is interesting because it does not appear to be an estimate to the nearest 5 or 10 minutes eg 1:20pm or 1:25pm etc. Putting it as 1:23pm suggests that the time was checked on a watch just before it was written. see: http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page256.php This would suggest the the rifle was found about 1:20pm and that the crime scene officers must have been on the scene earlier than the 1:20pm time recorded in various statements mentioned earlier. Tony If in fact we can verify that the watch that was looked at was accurate, which may be a huge assumption in 1963.

Mike, It gets Fritz away from the snipers nest in the immediate minutes following the discovery of the shells. If he's not there he can't tamper with them. Lee I hardly think that he would really have to lie about that. As it stands we have film footage from Alyea of Fritz entering the TSBD. If this is the case then Alyea had to enter after Fritz. So then to do we have Gerald Hill saying he yelled down to the ground as well, and then shortly after he heard Fritz et al coming up in the freight elevator. I think it is plausible that Fritz may have been still on the ground when they were found. Basically what we have is crime scene photos that Mooney says are consistent with what he saw. This is completely contradictory to Craig who said they were all neat in a row, and Alyea who says they could be covered by a hand towel. I might also note that not even Alyea seems to agree with Craig. Mike Mike If Fritz got to the TBSD at 12:58PM then I think it conceivable that Alyea could get the footage of Fritz entering, follow him in, Fritz stops on most of the floors then goes to the 7th. Alyea is then on the 6th. The casings are found at 1:15PM. Fritz comes down from the 7th floor 1:16PM-1:17PM. Mike - have you seen any affidavits from Luke Mooney about his discovery? I've looked in the DPD files and there is zilch for Mooney. Lee Lee, Buddy I am sure I have. Let me do some digging, as I think we are making good ground here. Mike

Clearly the shells were no found anyplace but the 6th. Just as obvious Craig lied without shame about many parts of that day. Mooney clearly says he was alone when they were found. It is possible Alyea filmed Fritz entering and arrived on the 6th at some point when Fritz did as well. However the point is Alyea was incorrect when he said he was on the 6th when they were found. It is also interesting that Hill also claims it is not until he yelled down that hea then heard Fritz coming up in the elevator. I have also read that many tried to claim the time was much earlier. This is generally in an attempt to make the timing of the Oswald identification impossible. I have never read anything credible that places the discovery of the shells earlier than 1:12.

KK You said it! That thing looks like a howitzer shell! Best to ya buddy, Mike

Mike, It gets Fritz away from the snipers nest in the immediate minutes following the discovery of the shells. If he's not there he can't tamper with them. Lee I hardly think that he would really have to lie about that. As it stands we have film footage from Alyea of Fritz entering the TSBD. If this is the case then Alyea had to enter after Fritz. So then to do we have Gerald Hill saying he yelled down to the ground as well, and then shortly after he heard Fritz et al coming up in the freight elevator. I think it is plausible that Fritz may have been still on the ground when they were found. Basically what we have is crime scene photos that Mooney says are consistent with what he saw. This is completely contradictory to Craig who said they were all neat in a row, and Alyea who says they could be covered by a hand towel. I might also note that not even Alyea seems to agree with Craig. Mike Mike If Fritz got to the TBSD at 12:58PM then I think it conceivable that Alyea could get the footage of Fritz entering, follow him in, Fritz stops on most of the floors then goes to the 7th. Alyea is then on the 6th. The casings are found at 1:15PM. Fritz comes down from the 7th floor 1:16PM-1:17PM. Mike - have you seen any affidavits from Luke Mooney about his discovery? I've looked in the DPD files and there is zilch for Mooney. Lee Lee, I could not find an affidavit from Mooney but I did find a brief report he wrote dated the day after the assassination that you might find interesting and, sorry to say, it will probably provoke more arguments! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney1.htm Tony Tony, Please do not misunderstand. At this point Lee and I are just ironing out some stuff here. I have no issue with Lee and rather enjoy dicussing issues with him. I think he is a top notch guy! I think somewhere I do have the Mooney AFF. I will have to see if I can find it. I lost a hard drive about a year ago with a ton of good stuff on it! Best to you Tony! Mike