Mike Williams

Is this type of shooting taught in the marines or can it be a personal trait that's self taught and therefore natural?

edit:typo

John,

By this type of shooting, you mean the shots in Dealey plaza correct?

If this is the case. Oswald would have had excellent rifle training, however, there are many civilians capable of this type of shooting.

These shots were all under 88 yards. Not difficult at all.

Mike

And it

is not about "churning out quickie books", which is a silly remark, but having

research results worth publishing. I take it you haven't because you don't.

I believe this mans every breath is a supposition.

When Stephen comes out with this book, I shall relax in a wonderful recliner, in front of a fireplace, and enjoy the read. Meanwhile using the writings of Fetzer, acquired from the dime section of used book stores, as the kindle.

I agree, Mike.

Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty?

I don't mean to butt in--but IMO, the answer is no. It would make it a faulty scope that was mounted on a weapon that had also been rotated. It is remotely possible that the rotation could compensate for the inaccuracy created by the faulty scope, but it is highly improbable, and completely unpredictable. IOW: you couldn't do it (compensate for error) on purpose with any degree of confidence, and doing it by accident is a fantasy. It would be like you aimed at Deer #1 using a known faulty sight, and just before squeezing off a round, you applied rotation--and voila` -- you accurately shot Deer #7 right between the eyes by accidental luck. SCORE!!!

I had posted before you edited.

You are 100% correct and bulls-eye for you!

I agree, Mike.

Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty?

I don't mean to butt in--but IMO, the answer is no. It would make it a faulty scope that had also been rotated. It is remotely possible that the rotation could compensate for the inaccuracy created by the faulty scope, but it is highly improbable, and completely unpredictable. IOW: you couldn't do it on purpose.

Greg,

If I am reading you correctly you are saying it would be only remotely possible. I would have to agree with that. It would be a slim chance that the issue would resolve with rotation, however if I recall correctly the issue with the Oswald rifle would have been elevation and not windage adjustment. This would really make the proposed question more unlikely.

I would have to go back through the exact tests and reasons why they shimmed the rifle and figure from there the issue as it pertains to rotation.

If there is any interest I would be willing to do this if it would be of use to anyone.

Salute!

Mike

I agree, Mike.

Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty?

John,

My initial response is to say that no matter how damaged a clock is, it is still right twice a day. However this does not hold with a defective scope. There is no certainty that the alignment would ever meet with the barrel/scope relationship.

Having said that, I believe Oswalds rifle was in need of shims, when tested, to correct the alignment. This would suggest that it would have amplified the issues of rotation.

Not to make a pun, but I very much enjoy working with you, as you leave no stone unturned and no angle unexamined!

Mike

OK, so that pretty much defines the space available for the possible positons that the rifle must have been held at to shoot through the window, ...like, one cannot fudge the line of sight.

edit:colloquialism

John,

I see your thinking here, and yes we do have to limit the rifle to a vertical position to retain accuracy. I would also add that the rotation issue is one shared by scope and iron sights alike.

When we test the nest so to speak we must do so with the rifle in a vertical and proper position.

Mike

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MIKE WILLIAMS' APPARENT COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT

The case for his cognitive impairment accumulates. As I observed, all Marine Corps officers are trained as

infantry officers first and, in my case, in artillery. No Marine I have ever known has denigrated the service

of another. None of us controls where and how long we serve in specific positions. I was in a staff position

at Regimental Headquarters when I resigned my commission and departed for graduate school. Apparently,

not even four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps stems attacks upon someone's patriotism.

He looked like a fake to me from scratch. Medium velocity is between high and low, so defining them both,

as Mike Nelson has done, implicitly defines "medium velocity" as between 1600 pfs and 2600 pfs, as I would

have supposed anyone who was not cognitively impaired could have figured out for themselves. Notice, too,

that he has offered no original observations of his own but only repeated two diagrams from Nelson's article.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps, such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older

rifle cartridges, must follow a rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most of these

slower cartridges are only useful to about 50 yards, perhaps 75 yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223, 22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06,

follow a much lower arc to reach a target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often

referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With higher velocities, these bullets go much further before gravity and air

resistance cause them to fall below the initial line of sight.

Mike Williams' definition of "high velocity" (from 2,000 to 10,000 fps) is absurd, since it obfuscates the kinds of

distinctions Mike Nelson has explained. That he cites Nelson and does not deny his competence impugns Mike

Williams' competence, because he is endorsing an incoherent account, which he reinforces by reprinting those

diagrams from his article. No competent ballistics expert would support the official account of Oswald as the

"lone assassin" unless he had an incentive. Here is a sample of research from a bona fide ballistics expert:

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH

Volume 3, Number 2 (2005)

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2.html

IN MEMORIAM:

VERNON JOHN RITCHSON 1952–2005

JOHN RITCHSON / Biographical Sketch and Final Comments

"One of the areas Mr. Burke and the rest of the lone-nutters are real short on is

authoritative cites in the relevant areas being discussed. Rather, their agenda

appears to be one of debasement and denigration as exemplified by their refer-

ences to me as a faker, fraud, cowardly dog, and buffoon, all in a sophomoric

attempt to trivialize and obfuscate the importance of my and other researchers’

work in this case. These sort of tactics represent the last resort of those who

know in their hearts the essential weakness of their case and are thus reduced

to ad hominem, having failed to produce any real rebuttal. For the record, I am

constantly garnering feedback and opinions from qualified professionals in the

field of firearms ballistics to absolutely minimize any possibility of error before I

even post an article." These observations, I think, apply equally to Mike Williams.

JOHN RITCHSON / Introduction to the Ballistics Evidence

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he presented an introduction to the physics underlying the science of bal-

listics, and explained in simple terms why the Warren Commission failed

in this area of its investigation. John Ritchson died just prior to the publica-

tion of this issue of Assassination Research.]

JOHN RITCHSON / The Rifle: Critique of the Simmons Testimony

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he dissected and critiqued the Warren Commission testimony of Owen

Simmons, which the Commission relied on crucially in trying to argue that

Lee Harvey Oswald could have fired the shots that killed the President.

John Ritchson died just prior to the publication of this issue of Assassina-

tion Research.]

Among the interesting observations by John Ritchson concerned the two

spent shell casings and the single live round that were "found" at the site

of the alleged "assassin's lair" on the 6th floor of the book depository, namely:

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

It would later be claimed that there was a third spent cartridge that was found

at the same location at the same time, but official "evidence photographs" by

the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.

I recommend anyone who wants to appreciate what a genuine ballistics expert

can contribute to this case should read these articles by John Ritchson and then

compare them with what you are hearing from this "lone nutter", Mike Williams.

John,

It wasn't an ideological decision but rather a choice of professions. I never planned a career in the Marine Corps. I was enrolled in the

Navy Regular Program, for which the Navy paid for my tuition, books, and spending money for four years as an undergraduate and, in

return, I agreed to serve four years as a Naval or Marine Corps officer. I took the Marine Corps option. After reflecting on the choice

of a career in the law or in higher eduction, I chose the path to a Ph.D. and academia. I always knew there was nothing I could do as

well as I could philosophy. I had not signed up for a lifetime commitment and I neither abandoned my men or my country, which had,

as it turned out, taken a wrong turn. And I have never seen any performance as shabby as that of this "Mike Williams" on this thread.

My brother, Phil, who also graduated from Princeton, however, was a bona fide conscientious objector. He had decided he would leave

the country if he were forced to fight in a war in which he did not believe. Prior to his appearance before the draft board, he asked me

if I would write on his behalf. I was glad to and explained to the board that I was convinced this was an act of conscience on his part.

I have often thought about how it affected the members of the board to have a letter from an active duty regular Marine Corps officer--

as I recall, I was a Captain at the time--write on behalf of a conscientious objector. By a single vote, Phil received his CO exemption.

So he deserves your praise on principle rather than I. For me, I had fulfilled my obligation and had other goals to pursue, which I did.

Jim

But then what would you expect from one who ran off to the

University of Indiana, at a time when his Country, his men, needed his loyalty the most?

The man is simply revolting.

Jim gains my respect for refusing to serve in Vietnam.

Jim,

Is there a "Navy Irregular Program?"

So you chose your own self serving motivations over that of your men and your Country? Impressive.

O

Jim,

So since you have yet to refute anything I have said, and since you have chosen to completely disregard the information provided from an educational resource in regard to velocities, you now throw another argument into the game by the way of Ritchson.

I hope you fair better at this argument than you have in prior postings. SO far your batting average is 0.

So what do we have here?

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

First off we begin with an inaccurate statement. The Mannlicher-Schoenauer round of the 6.5 x 54mm variety were of course expending projectiles of a diameter of .264:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x54mm_Mann...-Sch%C3%B6nauer

Whereas the Mannlicher-Carcano fired a .267 dia. projectile. (Frazier):

Mr. FRAZIER - The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length--possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters The diameter is .267 inches

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Of course this charicteristic distinguishes the seperation between the MC and MS rounds.

The projectiles recovered and tested were the proper diameter and caliber for the 6.5x 52mm configuration.

The argument that was proposed is simply ridiculous. The ammunition and casings recovered were perfectly consistent with the weapon discovered.

So Jim,

Are you going to address any of the prior issues I have put to you, or are you simply going to keep adding ridiculous arguments when you hit a brick wall?

(NOTE)

I do not agree to the conclusions Ritchson makes in his article, but all respect is due him, and I would certainly not want anyone to think I was disrespecting the man. I simply do not agree with his conclusion.

Right, I think I get it, Mike. So if stepping back towards straightup, instead of 90 degrees, lets say 5 degrees rotation. The bullet will end up to the right, but what's the rotation within the distances which the purported shots were fired downwards taking into acoount all ballistic factors, coefficient, altitude, wind, humidity, whatever. rotation that is the most that can be made and expect a bullseye.

John,

This would be dependent upon what range the scope was sighted.

As we can see the scope barrel relationship determined the meeting point of the projectile and cross-hairs. If we have no way of knowing what range the scope was set up for, then we can not determine the rising point of the bullet on the rise of the arc.

What we can say and know specifically is that at any rotation there would only be accurate at the very point that the rise of the projectile met the cross-hairs due to barrel scope relationship.

In short, firing with a rifle in a rotated position would be very difficult.

Mike

As anyone who has been there and done that can tell you. When it comes right down to it, you don't fight for patriotism, and you don't fight for Mom, or apple pie, you fight for each other. I would not expect many to understand that. Freedom truly does have a flavor the protected will never know.

Mike, the first thing that came to my mind reading this was wondering why one joins in the first place? Does it start out as the flag, mom and apple pie, and then change on the frontline, or is there some other dynamic involved?

FWIW, I don't feel protected by anyone's army. Nor do I want such protection. As far war - some are worth fighting, others are only worth fighting against. It's a copout saying you can't pick and choose. As for freedom.... it's just a state of mind. Your forefathers believed it could be protected by a piece of paper. But paper can be torn up. It's a nebulous concept, and constitutions and law should treat it as such. "It's the vibe of the thing, your Honor" that counts.

Greg,

I myself joined simply because it was something my family had always done. Each and every one of us. I suspect others might well have joined for an education, the opportunity to experience new things, or perhaps even just to test ones metal. Some may even have joined because of patriotism.

I suspect you may also be correct, in that things do indeed change. Some experiences are eye opening to say the least.

Your thoughts on war much resemble my own. However, I can not and would never say that anyone wins a war. The loss of humanity to both sides, is far the larger shadow.

Mike

William. On a side issue, could you comment on how much the rifle can be tilted (not up down but left right) and still be within the range considered accurate, for various distances? (in a five shot for example?)

"William"

Good stuff buddy lol!

I am unclear as to what you are asking. My apologies but are you asking me if the rifle can be rotated and still be accurate?

Mike

S..t, Sorry Mike, I was pondering a previous thought about a post by BK, it all got jumbled up in there somewhere. Yes, rotated is prob a better word, rotated on its axis so when sighting the rifle the more it's rotated the built in barrel lift would send it off left with a drift to the right and rotated clockwise arc right with attendant right drift plane. Look sorry about the name thingy, purely unintended, I'm actually very good at missing metal ducks in tivolis with a dodgy airgun, this is just a Q that you being here can further my knowledge. Over say three ranges, how many degrees of rotation (approx of course, before there is a significant accuracy drop. (I imagine in certain conditiotions a very slight anti clockwise rotation could contribute to accuracy because of the spin/planing motion drift.) Anyway, I hope you understand and will answer.

Dont worry about the name thing John, I thought you did it on purpose as a bit of humor! No worries there buddy.

Ok so the question is, how would a rotation of the rifle effect accuracy?

It would have great effect.

Let me see if I can explain this.

We know that a rifle that has the barrel held perfectly level, and fired, will not have the projectile rise above the level of the muzzle. This is because gravity takes its toll on all objects. As the projectile loses velocity, it loses ground to gravity and the curve towards Earth of the projectile becomes greater.

This is the example:

Note here that the bullet falls a scant few inches between 0 and 50 yards, and yet falls 10" between 350 and 400 yards.

So now when we add a scope, what we are doing is making a zero reference point, called "shooting a zero". We are aligning the scope to lift the muzzle to cause an arch in the trajectory which makes the bullet strike a known mark, at a known distance.

See this example:

Notice that the trajectory in this case appears to rise and fall. This is because we have elevated the muzzle of the weapon. So where are our sight determinations?

See here:

Note here that this trajectory has a zero of 180 yards. Being that the bullet will cross the exact same plane at 180 yards, that is was at when it left the muzzle. Also note that the impact point at 50 yards is 2" high, just as it is at say 160 yards.

So then how does this answer your question?

We can see that the first point at which the bullet passes a given plane, is on the rise of the bullet, and the second time it passes that same plane, is on the fall of the bullet.

The rise of the bullet is directly attributed to the scope/barrel relationship, while the fall of the bullet is related to the ballistic nature of the round. So basically we are counting on the upward angle of the muzzle to give us our upward trajectory, and we are relying on gravity to being a known bullet of a known weight, and known velocity back to that same plane down range.

This being the case, lets rotate that rifle.

Say we are now shooting at 90* rightward rotation of the rifle.

Our bullet now will be heading off to the right, because of the barrel scope relationship. However downrange gravity will be pulling our projectile down and away from our known arc, and trajectory path as it relates to the changed sight picture of our target.

In short. Rotating the rifle will not change the initial relationship between scope and barrel, therefore if using this example and firing with a 180 yard zero, we would still be accurate as the bullet passed the initial plane of the scope, but beyond that we would strike the target far right.

I hope this makes sense to you. If not let me know and I can spend a bit of time and make some better suited graphics to perhaps show the point far better than I can explain it.

Mike

Fetzer:

And this post is riddled with informal fallacies from special pleading (by citing only evidence

that is favorable to your side) to the straw man (by exaggerating that negative evidence) and ad hominem

arguments (by attacking the messenger rather than his message).

Isn't it lovely to see Jim Fetzer write something like this? The one who has done nothing but breaking these unwritten rules of communication throughout this thread? Your self awareness is truly astonishing, Fetzer. Something out of the ordinary, no doubt.

I also notice that "your creativity was unleashed in 1996". Isn't that a coincidence - as this applies to your favourite protege, Judyth, at about the same point in time? The two of you really have a lot in common, as you have displayed several of her most remarkable characteristics over the course of this thread.

A match made in heaven, as someone said.

Glenn,

I also note and find it amazing that Jim not only is completely ignorant of anything resembling ballistics, but how quickly he was willing to abandon the subject matter. My exposing an accurate assessment of his background seems to have struck a nerve in old Jim, and he points out that I have issues with inadequacy?

I also note that James seems to be a bit off in his assessment that he has never witnessed a serviceman devalue the service of another. Perhaps he has not read some of his own writings about George Bush, who was not only a service man, but the President of the United States!

How much more hypocritical can one get?

You see buddy this is yet another of Fetzers tactics. He can not and has not discredited anything I said about the ballistics in this case, so now he tries to discredit the person making the opinion, myself.

He accomplishes neither.

My best to you my friend!

Mike

Email from John Luquer, Staff Inspector, Office of Accreditation, Chattanooga Police Department

On post http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=192762 a question was asked and the credentials of Assistant Police Chief Mike Williams of the Chattanooga Police Department have been inadvertently attached to this thread, The Mike Williams posting in this thread is not Chief Williams but has forwarded the credentials of Chief Williams several times giving the impression that he is Chief Williams and furthermore has not denied that he is Chief Williams. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&start=2625

Several efforts have been made by us to correct this misconception. Chief Williams attempted to create an account on your site but new memberships are being denied, the moderator of the topic did not enable the report option in the thread, no moderator information available on the page.

At this time we believe this to be an unintentional oversight by the members of the thread, we request that you remove all references to Chief Williams from this thread and post a statement concerning the error.

Feel free to contact me regarding this matter.

Thank you,

Officer John Luquer

Staff Inspector

Office of Accreditation

Chattanooga Police Department

Phone: (423) 643 - 5164

Fax: (423) 643 - 5246

I must say this was an unexpected spot of humor this morning.

First off I have NEVER claimed to be Michael D Williams. Second I have never posted anything that ever remotely resembles his credentials and attributed them to myself. So one must sit back and just try to comprehend where this is coming from, or WHY it was even posted as an issue.

Chief Williams resume can be found here:

http://www.policeone.com/policeone/data/williamsvitae.pdf

Anyone can read this and determine that his background is law enforcement, I have never claimed such, with one exception. I did work as a Deputy Sheriff for about 9 months in the 90's. I had went into reserve status from the military, and decided to give the civilian life a go. It was short lived. I worked at this position under my step father who was the County Sheriff in the town I grew up in. It was a rather undistinguished and short venture to say the least.

Anyone, who can read, can compare my short biography here to that of Chief Williams, and certainly can compare what has been written in this thread, and see there are no similarities at all.

So where did I claim to be this man, and where did I claim his credentials?

Mike

JIM REPLIES TO MIKE WILLIAM WITH A FEW QUESTIONS (THREE, ACTUALLY) OF HIS OWN

Several questions arise in relation to this post. One is, how can someone who claims to have this extensive background in arms

and ballistics shift over to electrical engineering? According to Mike Williams, "I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work

on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues." That requires a technical background and

as a rule degrees in these subjects. What is his background and where can we verify that he is who he claims to be? If he wererunning a "Skeet and Gun Club" or a shop for working on weapons, his story might be more plausible. But that's not the case.

Oh Jim, it does not require much of a technical background. I simply had to take a class on the RS LOGIX5000 by Allen Bradley. Its a computer based logic system using coordinated PLC's and the NETWORX communications systems. Schooling was not that difficult, as my military career also afforded me the opportunity to be trained with some electronic systems used in surveillance, target acquisition, and identification of enemy position. Surely a former Artillery Officer would have known such.

As a side note I do still maintain an end mill, lathe and a few other tools for working on weapons. Its a hobby.

Question 1: These descriptions appear to be inconsistent. What is your actual background and how can it be verified?

So I am very skeptical about his claim to have a background in ballistics, where he even pluralizes "ammunition" and writes it as

"ammunitions", which strikes me as very odd. Moreover, he denigrated Mike Nelson as a reliable source when I cited him about

the distinction between high and low velocity, which remains the most competent presented on this forum. Yet he offers diagrams

to support his position that were taken from Mike Nelson's own paper, http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm, which

the source of one of the best, if not the best, defined distinctions between high, medium, and low velocity, which he discusses:

Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the horizontal velocity determines how far the

bullet travels before it hits the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles whether bullets, rocks, or

ping pong balls.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps, such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges,

must follow a rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most of these slower cartridges are only useful

to about 50 yards, perhaps 75 yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223, 22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower

arc to reach a target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With

higher velocities, these bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to fall below the initial line of sight.

Question 2. If you question Mike Nelson's background and qualifications, why are you using diagrams taken from his work?

Please Jim, show me where I said Nelson did not know what he was talking about? Can you do that please?

I said no such thing. And were one to read his article and then my explanation they agree perfectly. The only issue I had was with you not Nelson, which should have been plain to see. I asked you why you chose someone who used the term "perhaps" in his description of velocity.

So now if you care to address my original question. HOW do YOU know that Nelson is a reliable source? It is obvious you have very limited knowledge of the subject matter, so tell us Jim with all your expertise, how would you know the difference?

One can also note in Nelsons article that Jim keeps bringing up that there is never once a mention of "medium" velocity rounds.

I used the diagram to illustrate to point I was making, which does seem to agree with exactly what Nelson wrote. So the only point you are trying to make here is his division that 2600 fps is "high" velocity, even though he makes no mention of a "medium" velocity range.

I would suspect that an educational resource would be far more accurate, such as the one I posted at:

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)"

So now it appears you have an issue with my use of the term ammunitions.

See:

http://www.sellier-bellot.cz/hunting-rifle....php?product=19

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/.../03/0315_01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiratsuka_Nav...nitions_Arsenal

http://story.argentinastar.com/index.php/c...id/635362/cs/1/

What point exactly were you trying to make with this insignificant quibble?

How can you say:

...the source of one of the best, if not the best, defined distinctions between high, medium, and low velocity, which he discusses:

When anyone who knows how to search using Control+F can see plainly that the word MEDIUM is not used anywhere in that article??!

Nice job there "professor" but Ill stick with the definition from the University of Utah Medical Center. I would think a University opinion would suffice, unless of course it was one you were teaching at.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 1000-2000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 5 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 2001-2500 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 10 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 2501-3000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 20 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 3001-3500 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 30 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 3501-4000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 40 fps.

Question 3. If muzzle velocities of 2000 fps are called "high velocity", what do we call those in these four higher fps categories?

The point being that, were the term properly used as Mike Williams has proposed, then, since it is such low velocity relative to the

other four, what would be appropriate for the others? higher high-velocity? even higher high-velocity? His contention is ridiculous.

Well considering the University considers 2000+ as high velocity, I would have to consider another definition. Hyper velocity which is defined as approximately 10000+fps.

So with out new term, our ranges are verified as.

Low less than 1000fps

Medium as 1000-2000fps

High as over 2000 up to 10,000FPS

Hyper 10,000 and over.

Seems simple enough to me Jim.

What amazes me is why an Artillery Officer struggles so much with ballistics? Must have been a long time ago. Of course this is what happens when the war in Vietnam was heating up and you ran off to the University of Indiana.

Thanks for being there when the men needed you Captain.

Additionally, I would have to ask. What expertise do you even have in the subject matter at hand?

Fetzer went to Princeton and graduated I think in 1962. [Most of this information can be generated out of his CV on his web site.] He was in NROTC. This meant that in his junior year he went on a midshipman cruise and was subject to a three-year active duty commitment. When his book on the crash of Senator Welstone's plane came under overwhelming attact he claimed he had knowledge of aviation through his naval training. This amounted to a one-hour flight in a training aircraft at Pensacola piloted by a qualified Navy pilot ["Here Jimmy. Now put your hands on the stick and you can fly the plane. Just don't let your feet hit the rudder peddles or mess with the throttle."] Upon reporting for active duty, Fetzer was assigned to an artillery unit. He never was an infantry officer and never was in combat. He spent the next couple of years sitting on Okinawa with his artillery unit and then was transferred to the recruit training center in San Diego. He finished off his service doing statistical studies at the recruit training center.

By 1965 or early 1966, the Marine Corps was hurting for lieutenants and captains as Vietnam was heating up in a very real way. With Vietnam looming, what did Captain Fetzer do? He skedaddled into a mediocre graduate school at the University of Indiana. This has not prevented Fetzer from emphasizing his military career and identity as a Marine officer at every juncture.

Fetzer has claimed again and again that he is an academic marvel, that few professors in the history of Western Education have ever equalled his accomplishments. The truth is rather different. He could not get into a first rate graduate school. His first job was at a third-rate university, The University of Kentucky, and he was canned a few years later. For the next ten years, he subsisted on a series of temporary (Visiting Assistant or Associate Professor) jobs at dismal places like the University of Cincinnatti or the University of South Florida. For over ten years no one would pick him up and give him a permanent job. Finally, the University of Minnesota at Duluth picked him up. At this eighth-rate institution he had no real graduate students and contented himself teaching "critical thinking"... a course sometimes taught in high school and more often in two year junior colleges.

He attempts to use his career as a Marine officer in a similar way when the true history of that career poses a single question: Why did you skedaddle from the Marine Corps when the Corps really needed you?

One more thing. It is not incorrect to add an s to ammunition, however in your opener, my name is WILLIAMS not WILLIAM. Please do pay closer attention.

Now that's the way to describe a distinguished career! I would just add that you forgot Fetzer's high IQ, which he has kindly pointed out several times.

Thanks for a truly good laugh!

Im glad you enjoyed that, but you really should thank JIM, he deserves a laugh. Besides all I did was unveil the obvious, with a bit of help!

I hope things have been good for you my friend!

Mike

William. On a side issue, could you comment on how much the rifle can be tilted (not up down but left right) and still be within the range considered accurate, for various distances? (in a five shot for example?)

"William"

Good stuff buddy lol!

I am unclear as to what you are asking. My apologies but are you asking me if the rifle can be rotated and still be accurate?

Mike

JIM REPLIES TO MIKE WILLIAM WITH A FEW QUESTIONS (THREE, ACTUALLY) OF HIS OWN

Several questions arise in relation to this post. One is, how can someone who claims to have this extensive background in arms

and ballistics shift over to electrical engineering? According to Mike Williams, "I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work

on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues." That requires a technical background and

as a rule degrees in these subjects. What is his background and where can we verify that he is who he claims to be? If he wererunning a "Skeet and Gun Club" or a shop for working on weapons, his story might be more plausible. But that's not the case.

Oh Jim, it does not require much of a technical background. I simply had to take a class on the RS LOGIX5000 by Allen Bradley. Its a computer based logic system using coordinated PLC's and the NETWORX communications systems. Schooling was not that difficult, as my military career also afforded me the opportunity to be trained with some electronic systems used in surveillance, target acquisition, and identification of enemy position. Surely a former Artillery Officer would have known such.

As a side note I do still maintain an end mill, lathe and a few other tools for working on weapons. Its a hobby.

Question 1: These descriptions appear to be inconsistent. What is your actual background and how can it be verified?

So I am very skeptical about his claim to have a background in ballistics, where he even pluralizes "ammunition" and writes it as

"ammunitions", which strikes me as very odd. Moreover, he denigrated Mike Nelson as a reliable source when I cited him about

the distinction between high and low velocity, which remains the most competent presented on this forum. Yet he offers diagrams

to support his position that were taken from Mike Nelson's own paper, http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm, which

the source of one of the best, if not the best, defined distinctions between high, medium, and low velocity, which he discusses:

Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the horizontal velocity determines how far the

bullet travels before it hits the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles whether bullets, rocks, or

ping pong balls.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps, such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges,

must follow a rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most of these slower cartridges are only useful

to about 50 yards, perhaps 75 yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223, 22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower

arc to reach a target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With

higher velocities, these bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to fall below the initial line of sight.

Question 2. If you question Mike Nelson's background and qualifications, why are you using diagrams taken from his work?

Please Jim, show me where I said Nelson did not know what he was talking about? Can you do that please?

I said no such thing. And were one to read his article and then my explanation they agree perfectly. The only issue I had was with you not Nelson, which should have been plain to see. I asked you why you chose someone who used the term "perhaps" in his description of velocity.

So now if you care to address my original question. HOW do YOU know that Nelson is a reliable source? It is obvious you have very limited knowledge of the subject matter, so tell us Jim with all your expertise, how would you know the difference?

One can also note in Nelsons article that Jim keeps bringing up that there is never once a mention of "medium" velocity rounds.

I used the diagram to illustrate to point I was making, which does seem to agree with exactly what Nelson wrote. So the only point you are trying to make here is his division that 2600 fps is "high" velocity, even though he makes no mention of a "medium" velocity range.

I would suspect that an educational resource would be far more accurate, such as the one I posted at:

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)"

So now it appears you have an issue with my use of the term ammunitions.

See:

http://www.sellier-bellot.cz/hunting-rifle....php?product=19

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/.../03/0315_01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiratsuka_Nav...nitions_Arsenal

http://story.argentinastar.com/index.php/c...id/635362/cs/1/

What point exactly were you trying to make with this insignificant quibble?

How can you say:

...the source of one of the best, if not the best, defined distinctions between high, medium, and low velocity, which he discusses:

When anyone who knows how to search using Control+F can see plainly that the word MEDIUM is not used anywhere in that article??!

Nice job there "professor" but Ill stick with the definition from the University of Utah Medical Center. I would think a University opinion would suffice, unless of course it was one you were teaching at.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 1000-2000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 5 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 2001-2500 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 10 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 2501-3000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 20 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 3001-3500 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 30 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 3501-4000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 40 fps.

Question 3. If muzzle velocities of 2000 fps are called "high velocity", what do we call those in these four higher fps categories?

The point being that, were the term properly used as Mike Williams has proposed, then, since it is such low velocity relative to the

other four, what would be appropriate for the others? higher high-velocity? even higher high-velocity? His contention is ridiculous.

Well considering the University considers 2000+ as high velocity, I would have to consider another definition. Hyper velocity which is defined as approximately 10000+fps.

So with out new term, our ranges are verified as.

Low less than 1000fps

Medium as 1000-2000fps

High as over 2000 up to 10,000FPS

Hyper 10,000 and over.

Seems simple enough to me Jim.

What amazes me is why an Artillery Officer struggles so much with ballistics? Must have been a long time ago. Of course this is what happens when the war in Vietnam was heating up and you ran off to the University of Indiana.

Thanks for being there when the men needed you Captain.

Additionally, I would have to ask. What expertise do you even have in the subject matter at hand?

Fetzer went to Princeton and graduated I think in 1962. [Most of this information can be generated out of his CV on his web site.] He was in NROTC. This meant that in his junior year he went on a midshipman cruise and was subject to a three-year active duty commitment. When his book on the crash of Senator Welstone's plane came under overwhelming attact he claimed he had knowledge of aviation through his naval training. This amounted to a one-hour flight in a training aircraft at Pensacola piloted by a qualified Navy pilot ["Here Jimmy. Now put your hands on the stick and you can fly the plane. Just don't let your feet hit the rudder peddles or mess with the throttle."] Upon reporting for active duty, Fetzer was assigned to an artillery unit. He never was an infantry officer and never was in combat. He spent the next couple of years sitting on Okinawa with his artillery unit and then was transferred to the recruit training center in San Diego. He finished off his service doing statistical studies at the recruit training center.

By 1965 or early 1966, the Marine Corps was hurting for lieutenants and captains as Vietnam was heating up in a very real way. With Vietnam looming, what did Captain Fetzer do? He skedaddled into a mediocre graduate school at the University of Indiana. This has not prevented Fetzer from emphasizing his military career and identity as a Marine officer at every juncture.

Fetzer has claimed again and again that he is an academic marvel, that few professors in the history of Western Education have ever equalled his accomplishments. The truth is rather different. He could not get into a first rate graduate school. His first job was at a third-rate university, The University of Kentucky, and he was canned a few years later. For the next ten years, he subsisted on a series of temporary (Visiting Assistant or Associate Professor) jobs at dismal places like the University of Cincinnatti or the University of South Florida. For over ten years no one would pick him up and give him a permanent job. Finally, the University of Minnesota at Duluth picked him up. At this eighth-rate institution he had no real graduate students and contented himself teaching "critical thinking"... a course sometimes taught in high school and more often in two year junior colleges.

He attempts to use his career as a Marine officer in a similar way when the true history of that career poses a single question: Why did you skedaddle from the Marine Corps when the Corps really needed you?

One more thing. It is not incorrect to add an s to ammunition, however in your opener, my name is WILLIAMS not WILLIAM. Please do pay closer attention.

I also have never heard of a recreation at Quantico and certainly not one that Hathcock took part in.

I've also never heard of "U.S. congressmen and senators" being aboard the Cabinet flight to Japan on 11/22/63, nor of more than one code book missing from the plane ("all code books" were missing, "a very serious matter") (Kill Zone, p. 65).

Ron,

Thank you I had not heard those before. I certainly hope the mans rifle accuracy was far better than his literary accuracy.....

Salute,

Mike

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

Mike,

Perhaps I have an unrevised edition of Kill Zone, but in my copy (there's no copyright date, but it's a 1997 printing) Roberts doesn't even mention the South Knoll. That's the biggest question I had about the book (aside from all the errors already alluded to) when I read it. Roberts says that he went all over Dealey Plaza, and on the Grassy Knoll behind the Picket Fence was "exactly where I would position myself" (p. 13). Among its advantages, he says, was that "the target vehicle would be approaching instead of moving away," and would be "almost flat trajectory."

You might think that he's talking about the South Knoll, but unfortunately he's not.

However, when he toured the plaza with Debra Conway, he said exactly that the South Knoll would have been his pick. So either we have A) another inconsistency, or B ) a misunderstanding, as the GK would not be a flat trajectory nor an approaching target. (at least not in the direct sense of things.) I must admit that the picket fence comment certainly seems to rule out the misunderstanding ( B ).

I also have never heard of a recreation at Quantico and certainly not one that Hathcock took part in.

In short I think the man's agenda to sell books overcame his better sense.

How could a professional sniper and marksman say that any shot at 88 yards would be difficult? Ive looked at this shot in the plaza and frankly this statement escapes me. I just can not fathom how anyone could give this opinion as an honest assessment.

My very best to you Sir,

Mike

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

I do not need to be intimately familiar with the inner workings of a clock to be able to tell what time it is.

I too would prefer either a stationary target or, if not available (or unpredictable), one that was approaching me (getting larger) and descending below my horizontal LOS--particularly if target was in an open car.

Absolutely! The worst shot, and one to avoid, would be the knoll, where an issue would be a passing right to left shot. Although the Snipers nest location was not bad either, I just dont think it was the best choice. However one has to take what one can get lol.

The "key" to the knoll shot would have to be a stationary target. Without a guaranteed FULL stop it is--without a lot of luck--way too uncertain. But, I don't like the TSBD shot for several reasons. First, (assuming that is where I was staged) I wouldn't have passed up my BEST approach shot when target was on Houston Street immediately after straightening up after the turn from Main. The driver has NO escape route and very limited ability to acquire lateral motion! Granted, the angle is not optimal due to the relatively short distance and the fact that it is a moving target, which forces continuous adjustment, reducing the margin of error. However, if one were already positioned there, it seems to be the best opportunity, IMO.

However, waiting for the target to pass and acquire lateral motion down field is not smart--indeed, the target has an open escape route dead (no pun intended) ahead, as well.

Anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss this subject, my bad.

I would certainly say that is an accurate assessment!

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

I do not need to be intimately familiar with the inner workings of a clock to be able to tell what time it is.

I too would prefer either a stationary target or, if not available (or unpredictable), one that was approaching me (getting larger) and descending below my horizontal LOS--particularly if target was in an open car.

Absolutely! The worst shot, and one to avoid, would be the knoll, where an issue would be a passing right to left shot. Although the Snipers nest location was not bad either, I just dont think it was the best choice. However one has to take what one can get lol.

Yes Sir, it in fact is. I have never ever in all my years heard of a recreation at Quantico for example. Among other things.

How would you know? You said you've never even read it except for bits and pieces! What, you just happened to stumble upon the errors?

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

I do not need to be intimately familiar with the inner workings of a clock to be able to tell what time it is.

Greg,

Not at all so please do not misunderstand. I was and am in effect saying the same thing you are. Roberts has certainly made his place in this field, and I do not mean to imply that he has not. Further, if we are to look at this, Carlos Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms, and yet he was the man who laid the foundation for all such schooling in the Marine Corp! If you think about it it is quite amazing.

I would also add that there are many civilians with the knowledge and experience to render such opinions, that have never served in the military. Hence we need to give weight based on the substance of what one says, and not just their official accolades.

I think when evaluating an opinion we need to take all things into consideration.

So, then--it's illogical for you to say that the conclusions/opinions regarding ballistics that are contrary to your conclusions, are not well founded because those disagreeing with you don't have as much experience as you do. We know this is fallacious because Lt Colonel Roberts disagrees with you on every count of which I am aware. I wish you would refrain from claiming it in the future.

Greg,

You might note that Tom Purvis and I have very different views on the shooting event. However, Tom has built his theory on solid ballistic principle. Most have only what they "think" to go on, and often what they "think" is ballistically incorrect. This is where I question their knowledge on the subject matter and rightfully should. Many refuse to see the inaccuracy in their "thinking" simply because to admit that they are incorrect causes them also to have to admit that their theories are incorrect.

When faced with this, I do often ask them their expertise in the subject. I do this for the benefit of those who read the topics and may not know any better. I base my ideas and replies on solid ballistics, is it so much to ask others to do the same rather than just going by what "they believe"?

I do not agree totally with Tom, and yet, have to say that his conclusions are well based and built on substance and ballistic principle and not just errant thinking.

So if it seems like I challenge someones ballistic knowledge it is only because I know what they are proclaiming is incorrect. I see no wrong in this, as some may not know the difference, and they deserve accurate and correct evaluations presented to them.

I hope you can appreciate my position in this.

Mike

Mike, do you know Lt. Col.Craig Roberts, USA, Ret.? He's the author of: "Kill Zone: A Sniper looks at Dealey Plaza"? Have you read the book?

Hey Mike,

[snip] I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.[snip]

Greg,

I have read parts of it. Snips here and there. More importantly I have read his resume. Its revealing to say the least.

A couple things of note, is that he never held the official Mos of sniper, and in fact never qualified higher than Sharpshooter (Oswalds Rate) in the USMC.

I found it interesting as well that his MOS was an 0311, basic rifleman.

Additionall, Mike, his book is filled with errors.

Yes Sir, it in fact is. I have never ever in all my years heard of a recreation at Quantico for example. Among other things.

If you could just show me where he had official Marine Scout Sniper training it would be of interest to me.

If you're implying that Craig isn't qualified to render a well informed opinion, I beg to differ. I sense that you are calling his qualifications into question. There are many people who have not been official Marine Scout Snipers but that have other experience which affords them sufficient knowledge to have well informed opinions. Moreover, not everyone who has held a particular position necessarily makes correct judgment calls. It is hard for me to imagine that you are actually placing yourself in a position to judge Lt Colonel Roberts' qualifications. Not only did he rise to the rank of Lt Colonel, sargeant, but he served in Vietnam--in combat, with a Unit referred to as, The Walking Dead, and received the Purple Heart among 10 others. He was on the Tulsa Police Department for 27 years and became a training officer for the Tulsa SWAT team's snipers, as well. Are you not willing to concede that he is an expert on the subject, no matter exactly where he gained his knowledge?

Greg,

Not at all so please do not misunderstand. I was and am in effect saying the same thing you are. Roberts has certainly made his place in this field, and I do not mean to imply that he has not. Further, if we are to look at this, Carlos Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms, and yet he was the man who laid the foundation for all such schooling in the Marine Corp! If you think about it it is quite amazing.

I would also add that there are many civilians with the knowledge and experience to render such opinions, that have never served in the military.

Hence we need to give weight based on the substance of what one says, and not just their official accolades.

I think when evaluating an opinion we need to take all things into consideration.

Greg,

I have read parts of it. Snips here and there. More importantly I have read his resume. Its revealing to say the least.

A couple things of note, is that he never held the official Mos of sniper, and in fact never qualified higher than Sharpshooter (Oswalds Rate) in the USMC.

I found it interesting as well that his MOS was an 0311, basic rifleman.

Craig Roberts retired from the armed forces in 1999 with 30 years total service. He was awarded ten decorations for his Marine Corps service in Vietnam, where he served as a Marine sniper. He was also a career police officer with the Tulsa, Oklahoma, police department. An internationally published writer, he is the author of Combat Medic-Vietnam and Police Sniper, as well as the co-author of One Shot-One Kill, and The Walking Dead.

As a Master Police Officer:

By 1971, a new unit was formed called the "TAC Squad," which was Tulsa's first "SWAT" type special operations team. Roberts was selected for his Vietnam combat experience and his training as a sniper and with explosives. By this time he had attended Bomb Disposal School in Dade County, Florida and was one of three department bomb technicians.

Above: Gunnery Sergeant (Ret.) Carlos Hathcock, one of the Marine Corps best known snipers, and Craig Roberts during training of Tulsa Police Department's Special Operations Team's snipers (1989)

http://www.riflewarrior.com/resume.htm

If you could just show me where he had official Marine Scout Sniper training it would be of interest to me.

Additionally....

"Though not a school-trained full time scout sniper, the experience of sniper duty gave Roberts a new appreciation for military precision marksmen, which culminated years later in co-authoring two books on military sniping and one on police sniping ("One Shot--One Kill," "Crosshairs on the Kill Zone," and "Police Sniper.""

http://www.riflewarrior.com/a_sniper_in_indian_country.htm

All,

Dr. Vincent J. M. DiMaio, MD, is one of the world’s leading forensic pathologists and authorities on wound ballistics. His book, Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, published in 1985, is perhaps the classic work on the subject and is used as a textbook on the subject.

On page 141 he writes:

“Before discussing rifle wounds from high-velocity centerfire cartridges, one has to decide what a high-velocity centerfire rifle cartridge is. For the purpose of this discussion, it is defined as any cartridge with a centrally located primer intended to be fired in a rifle of caliber .17 or greater whose bullet is propelled at a velocity of more than 2000 ft/sec.”

The Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm Carcano centerfire round, when fired from the C2766 Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano carbine, has a muzzle velocity measured at an average of 2160 ft/sec.

Quite obviously it qualifies as a high-velocity weapon/cartridge.

Todd

Todd, your basic point is correct. The definition of high-velocity--even today--is inconsistent, and the M/C rifle is still considered a "high-velocity" rifle by most DOCTORS.

But Jim is also correct in that many ballistics experts--such as apparently this guy Nelson--argue that the divide should be higher, and that there should be three classes. Low--subsonic; Medium--supersonic but below 2600 or 2400 FPS (as I believe I've read elsewhere); and High--over 2600 or 2400 FPS. Jim is also correct in that this makes sense, given the widely divergent velocity of the rifles discussed.

Where he is wrong, however, is implying this divide was something Dr. Humes would have known about, and taken into account in his autopsy report. My initial challenge to Fetzer--find us a pre-assassination article on wound ballistics in which WWII-era rifles are called medium velocity weapons--remains un-met.

Perhaps it should also be noted that DiMaio is far from unbiased on anything assassination-related. On the KGB Files program he moved the Kennedy dummy into what he had to have known was an inaccurate position in order to get the SBT to align with the sniper's nest. He'd previously told the ARRB there was no need to re-investigate the medical evidence. That such a re-investigation would have totally humiliated his close colleagues Spitz and Baden of course had nothing to do with it.

When one looks back on his history, furthermore, one finds he was a Lattimerite going back to the early 70's.

Pat,

I once again am forced to tell you you are correct. In 63 what we consider a medium velocity weapon today would well have been in the upper velocity class.

Todd,

Despite our earlier disagreement, thank you for posting fair and accurate evidence.

velocity classifications are certainly subjective.