Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
I think it can be fairly argued that the Judyth Vary Baker saga has no relevance to
the John F. Kennedy assassination and all threads on the subject should be moved to
"another location".
Cliff,
That was in a word BRILLIANT!
I knew there was something I liked about you LOL. Good stuff!
(I guess now I have to retract the Queen comment) I only said it to get your goat. Dont be so think skinned.
Its obvious you are passionate about the subject matter, as am I, and frankly that deserves respect.
Should you ever have the desire to write something for my website, I would love to have it. I accept articles from both sides, and try to be as objective as I can in allowing all matters to be written about.
After all, just because I believe it was a single shooter, does NOT mean I am any where near convinced there was no conspiracy.
My best to you buddy,
Mike
Mike, I brought up your "QUEEN" crack in the context of "why we get along so poorly,"
a subject you raised, not I.
Aren't those kinds of insults best left to grade school playgrounds?
For myself, if I want to "get your goat" I prefer to find logical inconsistencies in your
argument and grind you with the facts, to wit:
As to your belief in a single shooter, you've undermined that determination
with your acknowledgment of "evidence of a short shot."
A "short shot" demolishes the 3-shot scenario, since a "short shot" could not
have possibly caused 5 wounds in two men, as per the SBT.
Cliff,
A short round does not at all dissolve the 3 shot scenario.
Shot 1 hits JFK shallow to the back
Shot 2 hits JBC causing his wounds
Shot 3 hits JFK in the head, strikes the chrome, shatters and sends a fragment to wound Tague.
3 up, 3 down and no magic.
However I would also say that I have given the SBT a much closer look as of late. Once one realizes that the impact angle to JFK and the Impact angle to JBC only have 2 degrees of difference, one must reconsider the alignment of that shot.
I am not sure what you mean by "logical inconsistencies" in my argument. The ballistics in this case support my position very well. Right down to the dented cartridge casing, which both explains the difference in sound of the first shot from the rest, but also the delay between the first and second shot.
There is far more about this, but that should be for another time.
I apologize for the queen comment, I have no control over your acceptance of that apology.
Mike
-
''Mike, I'm not disputing that you are right. However. since hearing of the scope misalignment I've sought any data regarding this, and this strikes me as getting something. Having had this thought for some years but not the mterial to work with, I cannot say how accurate such a study in fact would be. I'd like to see it attempted though.''
JOHN THESE ARE THE PHOTOS THAT I POSTED AND DELETED IN THE OTHER THREAD RE THE SCOPE YOU HAVE MENTIONED...B FWTAW
B,
You never cease to amaze me. You know me and my obsession with the rifle and shooting event, and yet you procure photos I have never seen!
You are an asset to the community for sure, and I for one appreciate your abilities!
Mike
-
Doug,
I spoke to her over a year ago, and that was EXACTLY the impression I got. She is not only very sharp, and bright as you pointed out, she is VERY straight forward.
I hear so many disconcerting things about her that it was refreshing to hear something that I could relate to. I enjoyed talking with her very much.
Best to you Doug,
Mike
-
SPECIAL REQUEST TO JOHN SIMKIN AND EVAN BURTON ABOUT HIJACKING THREADS
John and Evan,
Anyone who has followed this thread is aware that Josiah Thompson and Mike Williams have no
knowledge or interest in the subject of this thread but are here for the plain and simple reason
of wanting to attack, ridicule, and belittle me, regardless of the merits of their case. They have
hijacked this thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, which is both unprofessional but also easily
predicable for those with any familiarity with their character. This conduct on their part--which
I inadvertently encouraged by responding to one of Mike Williams' posts--not only undermines
the efforts of those who are seriously concerned with Judyth's credibility but sets a very poor
example for other threads where, if this kind of conduct is tolerated here, it may be expected
to occur on other threads at other times for other reasons. I therefore formally request that a
neutral party--Evan Burton would be fine!--review the past 100 posts or so and remove them
from this thread and add them to some other. I know that Williams and Thompson created a
thread, "Fetzer and Ballistics 101", for the obvious reasons. That might be a suitable location
for these posts, since they are assailing me, often in relation to questions of ballistics. I have
no problem with being attacked: it goes with the territory! But it is extremely unfair to me and
to Judyth and to everyone else, such as Jack White, Michael Hogan, Pamela Brown, David Lifton
Douglas Weldon, Stephen Roy, Pat Speer, Gregory Burnham, Dean Hagerman, Barb Junkkarinen,
and many others--to have the thread taken over by parties with no serious interest in its subject.
I therefore request in the interest of fair-play that irrelevant posts, including mine, be moved to
another location, where the parties are welcome to continue to assail me to their heart's content.
With appreciation,
Jim
Of course now that the Great Fetzer is looking like a real baboon, he cries that the thread has been hijacked, even thought he has been a willing participant to the conversation.
However one will note that I began a new thread two days ago for this very thing.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15944
Fetzer has not seen fit to reply there, as the cause he supports is hopeless. However it gives him cause to shed tears of foul here. Even after he has been a more than willing part of the conversation, and certainly in more than the one post he claims. Can this man not be honest about anything?
Professor who do you think you are fooling?
I ask again, why did you turn your back on your Country and your men, when they needed you most?
-
Mike, I'm not disputing that you are right. However. since hearing of the scope misalignment I've sought any data regarding this, and this strikes me as getting something. Having had this thought for some years but not the mterial to work with, I cannot say how accurate such a study in fact would be. I'd like to see it attempted though.
Give er a go John and lets see how it comes out. Id like to see that myself.
Mike
-
And very accurately measurable three frame sequence, which I suggest may be sufficiently indicative of barrel scope relationship within a satisfactory error margin.
John,
I do not think you can measure anything in a photo down to the .001 of an inch. The difference here would be minutes of angle, fractions of a degree.
I think it would be nearly impossible to measure and even less possible to verify.
Mike
-
Mike : ''John Dolver asks: "Judyth, when you went to spend some time in Sweden and go through the process of applying for asylum, part of your claim is that you are a socialist. Could you please take time to outline the argument you have for this, as well as state why you consider this a point of relevance. Further, how do you reconcile that with the proposed murder of the head of state of the sovereign nation of Cuba and performing this task with the Central Intelligence Agency of the sovereign nation the United States of America. Please."
JVB replies: "SHOW US THE QUOTATION. This was supposed to be private, personal information. Only the verdict, with some explanatory statements, was supposed to be released to the public. I insist on seeing a copy of the document. Scan it, please.
The events of 1963 involved missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads to my country, compliments of Castro. I was a 19-year-old American, in 1963, who had written President Kennedy and offered my services to my country." ''
John,
Thanks buddy. I have been following this loosely and got a bit lost. Thanks for the bread crumbs!
Best to you buddy!
Mike
-
There sre three frames in a film of the rifle being carried down a corridor being held aloft by the person carrying it. One frame is overexposed because the camera fiming it happrned to come within the projected field of view of the scope which is pointing at a well illuminated area. The two frames either side of this frame and the overexposed frame may shed some light on the scope alignment in relation to the barrel before any body shimmied it.
John,
Unfortunately, it can't. We are talking about a matter of thousandths of an inch.
-
So you admit that this is so. The question remains as to how you recincile it, how do you justify it? If you cannot, which I suggest you cannot because it is inherently irreconcilable, then this is a possible indication of a tendency to tell porkies.
John,
What are you referring to?
-
Agreed. However, here's why I asked. As far as I'm personally concerned--I would not use ammo that I hadn't stored myself or ammo that I didn't know "who or how" it had been stored. This would apply even more if the weapon make and model I chose (for a very important "assignment"--as opposed to target practice) had itself not been produced for nearly 20 years prior to my using it [Mannlicher Carcanos retired from Italian Army circa 1940 and all production was discontinued by 1945]. As I think you will agree, delitirious effects on elements of precision, as they negatively impact accuracy, tend to be cumulative and also tend to compound each other even further if more than one are present. So, the age and condition of the weapon are factors, as is the age and condition of the ammunition. The healthy physical appearance judged by the naked eye is not necessarily indicative of a reliable weapon or ammunition.
I agree completely. I would add that the ammunition is the key to accuracy here. If this had been my task, I would have hand loaded the day before and made sure every single aspect was perfect. But then again, had I undertaken this task it would have been a one shot event.
Since you tend to believe that LHO was the lone shooter, he apparently was capable of being quite thorough in his execution of his task and quite composed in the aftermath. 1) He pulled it off -- that alone is huge. (Not so much for the marksmanship, perhaps, as for the audacity and coolness under extreme pressure). 2) He escaped immediate death! No one returned fire let alone killed him on the spot in defense of the POTUS). 3) His escape from the immediate crime scene worked quite well--escape route was effective. 4) Upon arrest and interrogation he was calm and cool (after initial altercation) and never admitted guilt. And there's more, but I'll stop with that much for another reason...I would only agree in part. Oswald got lucky. Hitting 1 of 3 is not excellent shooting by any means. Its sloppy. If he had missed that last shot, JFK may well have survived the day!
It seems inconsistent to me that he would choose an MC for the job? Doesn't seem to jibe with his level of competence (which was quite high). He employed a weapon that was about 18-23 years old--now, he could have completely refurbished and/or cleaned it up for the task, but there is no record that he did. The scope has alignment problems that he didn't correct. Maybe he could "shoot round it" -- but even if true, why would such a thorough guy leave that glaring loose end? He even had a weird "sling" attached to it. Odd. As for the ammunition, it was traced back to Western Cartridge Company in Chicago. It was part of a batch of Four Hundred Thousand (400,000) that was manufactured in 1954. It was ordered by the USMC, who had NO weapons in which it could be used. The FBI believed it was ordered (probably for CIA) by the USMC for "concealment" purposes. But, this was 9 year old ammo whose provenance and method of storage was unknown to Oswald as far as we can tell from the documentation.The MC is a quite capable weapon. I see no reason to believe it was unsuited. Furthermore, we have no evidence that shows us there were scope issues at the time of the assassination. The US military has been known to sell off surplus ammo after as little as 5 years. I have .223 ammunition right now that is 6 year old surplus. It would not be any real surprise to me to find that Oswald purchased some surplus ammo for this rifle. This would not be out of the question.
Using that weapon, particulrly with THAT ammo, just doesn't seem consistent with his "competent" behavior, IMHO.But it does seem consistent with the event.
We have significant evidence that a short round was fired. We can see that it took him 3 shots to accomplish the task at relatively short range. We also know that rifle was somewhat equal to what he could afford, or would spend. (Oswald was a bit of a tightwad).
Furthermore, if Oswald had been part of a grand scheme, surely they could have and would have given him a much better weapon, ammunition, and get away plan!
To me the earmarks of the task are clear.
Mike
-
Pat,
Thanks for this post. The purpose of "evidence photographs" is to photograph evidence.
It is extremely interesting to me that when simple, obvious proofs that Oswald was not
the "lone gunman"--such as the fact that the weapon only had a muzzle velocity of 2,000
fps and that only two spent shell casings and one unspent were found at the "assassin's
lair"--they launch a massive campaign against them, even appealing to highly distorted
definitions of "high velocity". Even Posner grants that the Mannlicher-Carcano had only
a 2,000 fps muzzle velocity and there have been plenty of weapons around that possess
much higher muzzle velocities, such as the M-1, the 30.30, the 30.06, and most others,
as the following table from http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm shows:
A useful standard is the M-1, which Patton described as the "Greatest battle implement
ever devised". The M1 Garand was produced until 1957 and was the standard issue of
the US Army and Marines during WWII and the Korean War. The M1 Garand's reputation
for accuracy, reliability and durability was built on the use of only superior grade materials
and workmanship and the "self-contained" design which exposes very few moving parts
to the elements. It's basic characteristics are: Action: Gas semi-auto Weight 9 lbs 8 oz,
Length 43.6 in Muzzle Velocity: 2,750fps Max. range: 3,450 yds Max. Effective range
800-1,000 yds Magazine: 8 round, En Bloc, with its muzzle velocity of 2,750 fps. There
is no reasonable definition by which a 2,000 fps weapon would qualify as "high velocity".
Your points about some of the evidence--The photo of the two shells with the bullet was
taken on 11-26, not 11-22. Aside from a few photos of the rifle...NO evidence photos
were taken by the DPD on 11-22, or, if they were taken, were placed into the files. This
is quite strange. They took numerous photos of the sixth floor, and were fairly thorough.
They took a number of photos of the rifle, and of the fingerprints on the trigger guard.
But they somehow failed to photograph the paper bag, the corner of the box they'd found
that supposedly held Oswald's palm print, the palm print supposedly on the rifle barrel,
the piece of wood removed from the window, etc.--do not alter the ballistic evidence.
The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show
two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a
exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round
were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and
2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two
spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which
reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in
which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3". Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address
the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).
I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point
that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another
spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence"
about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make
their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by
taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where
the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward.
That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does
not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.
Jim
Jim,
Your inability to recognize given evidence is legendary.
While you have yet to define high velocity, you only speculate as to what it is, and then tell us what it can not be, based on proving your point.
You have been given two solid resources for the definition, and yet you continue to offer nothing in the way of evidence that proves those definitions are incorrect.
Additionally, we see the same behavior in dealing with the two casings issue. This myth has been dispatched years ago, the fact that you do not seem to have the mental capacity to absorb this comes as no real surprise to me.
What you are saying in effect is that only the fastest race car can be called fast, and all others can not be called fast because they are not as fast. How ridiculous.
The definition for high velocity is quite clear. I am sorry that it PROVES you wrong, however that is not my issue, its yours.
The integrity you have shown in facing these facts speaks volumes.
Mike
-
Mike,
On a slightly different, but relevant note, in your opinion, how old is "too old" for ammunition? I know what the answer for me personally would be, and there are some variables that could extend or diminish the "safe shelf life" expectancy. But, in general terms, how long would you feel comfortable and confident to use 6.5 WCC ammo after its original date of manufacture?
Greg,
This is very difficult to answer. It would depend on the conditions it was stored in. In an ideal environment it could be reliable for decades. In less than ideal conditions, it could be as small as a year or two. In wet conditions, less than a week.
Its really hard to determine as each presents its own case.
I recently read an article from a man who purchased some MC ammo from the 30's. Out of 200 rounds he had one misfire. I think that is crazy luck, but it proves the point you just never know.
Mike
-
In just a quick read of that extensive posting from Fetzer, one will notice that all Ritchson has explained is the flight of a bullet. Although he does so in a very scattered and disjointed fashion. There is little mention of how this relates to what we see in the assassination evidence. Most of it can be copied and pasted from several different websites. I can only imagine this was done in an attempt to establish some expertise in the subject matter.
He then moves on to express an incorrect opinion. He claims that the Carcano was insufficient for the task, which is epically incorrect.
It appears that by giving a description of the flight of a bullet, the writer hopes to gather some confidence from the reader that he actually knows what he is talking about. He does this to give weight to his next statements. That the Carcano was garbage.
It is an attempt, and a weak one, at discrediting the potential of the weapon and caliber. This is grossly incorrect. The 6.5 Carcano was every bit as accurate as the American M-14. Further its sectional density, and ballistic coefficient give it very stable and consistent flight characteristics and amazing penetrating ability.
If one is paying close attention, what one finds is that the writer either A ) Did not understand what he was writing about when he wrote about the flight characteristics, or B ) Did not understand the characteristics of the 6.5mm 160 grain 2165fps cartridge.
Neither is excusable.
Equipped with this rifle, a shooter of the caliber of Lee Harvey Oswald on hisbest day couldn’t have hit the water if he fired it off of a boat, much less accom-
plish what the Warren Commission said he did.
This is an epic indication of the knowledge of the writer.
Anyone who has had any experience with firearms can tell you that accuracy is achieved based on 3 things.
1.Consistent velocity
2.Consistent projectile weight
3.Consistent projectile shape
One who sees this sees that it actually has little to do with the rifle at all!
Ammunition is the key to accuracy.
I have fired many rifles using off the shelf ammo and gotten decent results. A quick change over to match grade hand loaded ammo generally yields much better results.
Consistency in ammunition is the key to accuracy.
So in effect what we have posted by Fetzer is a long article describing flight characteristics, and then a summation that shows the author understood very little about what he wrote.
Mike
-
[snip]
I certainly am glad that Mr. Freeman did not chose to abandon his men and his Country and run off to the University of Indiana.
God Bless and Keep him.
Great story, Mike. Freeman was indeed a hero--without question. Were you one of those he rescued? If not, is there a specific reason that this story is significant for you? I'd like to hear your story, if you want to share. Were you in combat? Wounded? Deployed and in the line of fire, etc.? If you can't say, I understand...
I'm confused as to the relevance of your reference to the University of Indiana. It is a cheap shot that has no bearing on anything. If you are confident in your criticisms of Jim Fetzer's arguments perhaps it would be appropriate to remain focused there else your own credibility might suffer. But, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disregard it.
Greg,
You are correct, it was a cheap shot, however it is accurate.
Advise taken, I should consider how I look when posting such things.
Truth is, I had an Uncle and a Close Friend that were involved in the Ia Drang Valley fight. They were both removed by chopper after being seriously wounded. I have no idea if it was Freemans' bird or not. I do know that it was not a medivac bird. It was far after they were called off. I would also say that there were several birds coming and going with Freeman, so I can not say it was his specific bird. What we do know is that he was the driving force of those birds going in.
As for my own experience. I have difficulty there. I like to share the funny stories, the occasional oddity, and at times something that might be ballistically relevant. Other than that I do not really see the point. If it does not provide a fact, explain a situation, or bring laughter, it is hardly worth the effort. I will tell you that yes, I have been in combat, on multiple occasions. I was wounded. I was given awards (meaningless really, a ribbon and $5 will get you starbucks coffee).
I would tell you that I absolutely deplore violence now. I see no winner in war. War is an evil, and often unjustifiable, entity.
So why did I stay?
This is tough for me Greg. I stayed, because I was good at it. Because my one hope was that by teaching others, they might return home intact. I did not and do not believe in the war in Iraq. However, I did my part, simply because by teaching them the right way, their chances of survival go up. Like I said in an earlier post, its about the men, boys in most cases.
I hope you can see where I am coming from here.
Oh yes, no I was not one that Freeman rescued. I was in diapers then!
Mike
-
You're a 19 year old kid.
You're critically wounded and dying in
the jungle somewhere in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam .
It's November 11, 1967. LZ (landing zone) X-ray.
Your unit is outnumbered 8-1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 yards away, that your CO (commanding officer) has ordered the MedEvac helicopters to stop coming in.
You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.
Your family is half way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again.
As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.
Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter.
You look up to see a Huey coming in. But ... It doesn't seem real because no MedEvac markings are on it.
Captain Ed Freeman is coming in for you.
He's not MedEvac so it's not his job, but he heard the radio call and decided he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway.
Even after the MedEvacs were ordered not to come. He's coming anyway.
And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 3 of you at a time on board.
Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the doctors and nurses and safety.
And, he kept coming back!! 13 more times!!
Until all the wounded were out. No one knew until the mission was over that the Captain had been hit 4 times in the legs
and left arm.
He took 29 of you and your buddies out that day. Some would not have made it without the Captain and his Huey.
Medal of Honor Recipient, Captain Ed Freeman, United States Air Force,
died last Wednesday at the age of 70, in Boise, Idaho ..
I certainly am glad that Mr. Freeman did not chose to abandon his men and his Country and run off to the University of Indiana.
God Bless and Keep him.
-
I agree. It's so obvious. Look at the shadow his left cheek casts on the second pipe. This is where he has to hold his head sighting through the whatever sight he was using. I find it hard to go from there to the recorded PC exhibits and not have to tangle with the pipes. It's a very enveloping space where it seems to me achieving a workable possition is a position with not much leeway at all.
Look how much room he still has to his right.
I dont know that I would use this as a guide.
Mike
-
Follow-up email from John Luquer:
Mr. Williams,
I understand the confusion concerning my e mail. If you will be so kind as to indulge me I shall endeavor to clarify myself. First and foremost I was, in no way attempting to insinuate that you claim to be Chief Williams. If I gave that impression I apologize. I agree with you that your information is there for anyone to read who cares to look however some people do not expend the effort to do so. I did read your biography page hence I knew you were not Chief Williams and the conclusion that there was some confusion about the identity of the two of you.
Let me assure you no one called me, I have a Google alert set for “Chattanooga Police Department” that allows me to keep up with events involving my agency. I was alerted to a post on your thread made by Greg Burnham on May 24th, asking if you were Chief Williams and he included Chief Williams’ credentials and bio information in the post. This question was not addressed perhaps because the focus was on ballistics but the post was forwarded with the information no less than 17 times.
Just as Mr. Burnham was initially confused as to whether you were Chief Williams it is reasonable to believe others may be as well. I took not addressing the original question and the posts forwarding the information as an unintentional oversight, nothing more. This is what I was attempting to convey to Mr. Simkin as our motivation behind the request to remove references to Chief Williams from the thread.
The press seldom digs very deep in to the background of a situation before printing a story and defense attorneys may introduce misleading information in a trial in an attempt to discredit an expert witness. The intent of the e mail was to facilitate the removal of Chief Williams’ information to circumvent any confusion with the press or any court proceedings Chief Williams may be called to testify in.
This request was not intended to throw doubt on your own credentials or discredit you in any way.
Please do feel free to call me if you like concerning this matter.
Respectfully,
Officer John Luquer
Staff Inspector
Office of Accreditation
Chattanooga Police Department
Phone: (423) 643 - 5164
Fax: (423) 643 - 5246
John,
Thank you for posting that. I did in fact speak with Officer Luquer yesterday, and he conveyed these same thoughts to me. I guess when you have such an unusual name as "Mike Williams" this sort of thing is bound to happen!
Mike
-
As many of you know, Jim has been debating me in another thread on the classifications of projectile velocity.
He has cited an article by Mike Nelson, which in fact was a rather good article. He cites Nelson as an expert in the subject matter, and claims that Nelsons article, found here: http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm , is an authoritative writing on ballistics.
But What does Mike Nelson himself say?
Why we can find it right here at the link right underneath Ball Room Dancing, and Photography!
See the Guns and Ammo section for the following:
"Most of these articles were the result of our building a shooting range at the family farm and investigating related topics. Though our contribution to the world of shooting information might be minimal, the following articles represent information not readily available to us when we began improving our shooting facilities. There are also a few articles associated with the teaching of Firearm Safety and Hunter Education for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources."
So Mike gained his firearms knowledge while building a shooting range on the family farm. Quite an authority.
I do however say again, his writing on trajectory is quite good, and for the most part, very accurate. I suspect this is because Mike has a MS in Math and Physics. However would this make him an expert in firearms and related topics, of course not. It would however give him the type of knowledge he writes on such as trajectory.
It has been offered to Jim By Todd Vaughn, that"…defines “low velocity” as “Any missile traveling at less than 2,000 feet per second” and “high velocity” as “Projectiles traveling faster than 2,000 feet per second.”
It’s a U.S Military Field Manual published by the Field Medical Service School at Camp Pendleton, California.
It’s a field manual for the United States Marines!
Found here:
http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/Ope...ONSFMST0424.htm
I myself have cited The University of Utah Eccles Health Sciences Library
Which tells us that:
"Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)"
Found here:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html
So he has been given two very reliable sources, and yet clings to the writing of a man who learn his stuff building a shooting range on the family farm, when he has time between ball room dancing and photography!
Are you kidding me?
Is THIS critical thinking?
So now once we get past the ridiculousness Fetzer has subject us too, we must ask.
Are we do to discredit two credible definitions of Low velocity for a definition that states:
"Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps"
Clearly the cut off by both of the credible and solid sources is 2000fps.
The Mannlicher Carcano as tested had an average muzzle velocity of 2165 FPS (WCH3p400, Frazier)
So then once cornered Fetzer tells us that Frazier is not a reliable source because he was only an expert on .45's and Tommy guns.
This borders on absurd.
I guess he missed where Frazier tells us:
Mr. FRAZIER - I have a science degree which I received from the University of Idaho.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you briefly state your training and experience in the fields of firearms, firearms identification, and ballistics?
Mr. FRAZIER - Beginning in 1937, I was on the University of Idaho Rifle Team, and the following year, 1938. In 1939 I enlisted in the National Guard and for 2 years was on the National Guard Rifle Team firing both small bore, or .22 caliber weapons, and the large bore, .30 caliber weapons, both being of the bolt- action type weapons.
In 1939 and 1940 I instructed in firearms in the Army of the United States, and acquired additional experience in firing of weapons, training in firing at moving targets, additional training in firing the .45 caliber automatic and machine-guns. And to further my firearms, practical firearms training, I received in 1942 a training course offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after entering on duty with that organization in--on June 9, 1941. That firearms training course consisted of a basic training in handguns-- that is, revolvers and automatic pistols, training in autoloading rifles, training in submachine guns, shotguns, and various other types of firearms.
One year later, approximately 1943, I received a specialized administrative firearms course which qualified me for training other agents in the field of law-enforcement type firearms.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
So here is a classic case of accepting what fits your theory and completely disregarding the actual and credible evidence.
Critical thinking went out the window in this one.......
One would also note here Mike Nelson's words of wisdom:
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/jmnelson/web/index.html
""There is little penalty, and often great reward, for purporting as fact allegations for which one has little or no evidence."
(J M Nelson, c. 1995)"
I believe he is speaking about Fetzer!
-
He has no clue what he is talking about.
In his original claim that the weapon was not high velocity he cited as his experts” Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden, F. Peter Model, and Harry Livingston.
What a laugh!
Todd,
Its going to get a lot funnier very soon, look for the new thread that is forthcoming.
Mike
Mike, I hope your joking, it's killing me already. :-)
Glenn
I am absolutely NOT joking. You and Todd are going to LOVE this LOL.
-
Todd,
Its going to get a lot funnier very soon, look for the new thread that is forthcoming.
Mike
-
You picked a bizarre source, Todd. They classify knives, bayonets, rocks, sticks and glass as "low velocity" missiles.
Of course so does the The University of Utah Eccles Health Sciences Library!
Again and I am typing slower for you Jim:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html
Which is as stated:
"Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)"
Of course all of those things ARE low velocity missiles!
<DELETED>
-
Of course every single witness who testified saw three shells. Of course the FBI was able to procure and test ammunition of the exact type found in the exact weapon found.
This two casing theory was washed out years ago. Anyone, especially one who teaches "critical thinking" should have been able to easily comprehend that.
They must be lining up for a refund. If not, they should be.
So Jimbo, would YOU care to debate me on ballistics? Using your own extensive knowledge of the material?
<DELETED>
-
Is there a "Navy Irregular Program?"
Mike
Have you watched "Full Metal Jacket" as many times as I have?
Since you seem to be the only one that picked up in that! You BET!
I have also met R. Lee Ermey a few times.
Nothing like his character!
Have a great Tuesday Buddy!
-
Yes and yes, Mike, I agree.
Oswald had marine training. Civilians who can be superb shots and know how to correct a misshoot from a habitual rotation already stated as diffiocult brings in the question of whether within the already diminished window of opportunity that window of opportunity was in fact so minimal so as not to allow for sufficient error.
John,
I would say that even on a weapon with no sights, I can walk a bullet to target, so long as I can see where the rounds are impacting.
Now in this case with limited time and movement, it would be very very difficult, bordering on impossible.
Mike
Fetzer takes ballistics 101!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Of course, if you cant explain it and make if fit your theory, simply call it faked and let the conjecture parade begin.
What amazes me the most about 47 years of research, and there seems to be multitudes of people that have no idea what an entry wound could look like.
There is no evidence what so ever of a shot from the front.
<removed by E Burton - Do not refer to the research abilities of other members>
I extend to you an open offer to debate the ballistics in this case any time you wish.
I have a feeling you will not accept the offer, I assure you the outcome would make you look as ridiculous as you did on the O'Reilly show.
Mike