Mike Williams

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.

Hey Mike, Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise? Thanks-- Greg, You are a wise man to ask. After all how are we to determine what weight to give someones opinion should we not know what knowledge base that opinion comes from? To answer you I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues. But that is this life. For a more complete view of my qualifications you may want to read my short Biography. Please bear in mind, this was posted in 2007, before being employed in my present position. I still do some gunsmith work, but time is short these days and I have little time for it. "I am recently retired from the United States Marine Corp, after 23 years of service; 1984-2007. My military occupational specialty, or Mos, for the last 19 years of my tour was 8541 Scout/Snipers. I have a strong background in ballistics, ammunitions, and weapons. I find this area to be the most interesting. Secondary Mos of 8654 (Dive and Para qualified), and 0321(reconnaissance). I am currently employed as a gunsmith, and specialize in modifying weapons for high degrees of accuracy, and recoil control. I am very new to the study of the assassination of John Kennedy, and find all areas of study interesting. " 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. I hope this answers your question at least in part. Have a great Sunday! Mike Of course as anyone who has an inkling will tell you that it is the muzzle rise created by the sights of a rifle that create an arc in the trajectory. A rifle barrel held horizontal to the ground, and fired will never allow a projectile to rise above the original height of the muzzle. The projectile will fly in a manner that slowly loses velocity and altitude, until such time that velocity is overcome by gravity, and then we would see a sharp downward path of the projectile. This is the example of trajectory without sight elevation: So how do we explain the trajectory arch so common to ballistic analysis? Quite simply. The rear sight on a rifle is higher than the front, this is by design. So as we are aligning the rifle we hold the muzzle slightly higher, in accordance with the sights. This allows the muzzle to be slightly angles upward giving the projectile the advantage over gravity and a longer flight path. Note that one can then sight in a weapon at 15 yards and have an accurate weapon at 200 yards in some cases, as this allows the projectile to break the same horizontal plane on the upward path, that it breaks on the downward path. Please see for example: One would notice that at the 2" mark in the left we see the bullet pass this plane on the rise at about 50 yards, and then again on the fall at 160 yards. This is typical and text book rifle sighting trajectory. Something any Marine, and certainly a Marine officer should know. Perhaps Jim has forgotten these basics over the years? Of course it must also go to note that Jim fails to address my questions in the former post. One can ONLY WONDER why?!?

Hey Mike, Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise? Thanks-- Greg, You are a wise man to ask. After all how are we to determine what weight to give someones opinion should we not know what knowledge base that opinion comes from? To answer you I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues. But that is this life. For a more complete view of my qualifications you may want to read my short Biography. Please bear in mind, this was posted in 2007, before being employed in my present position. I still do some gunsmith work, but time is short these days and I have little time for it. "I am recently retired from the United States Marine Corp, after 23 years of service; 1984-2007. My military occupational specialty, or Mos, for the last 19 years of my tour was 8541 Scout/Snipers. I have a strong background in ballistics, ammunitions, and weapons. I find this area to be the most interesting. Secondary Mos of 8654 (Dive and Para qualified), and 0321(reconnaissance). I am currently employed as a gunsmith, and specialize in modifying weapons for high degrees of accuracy, and recoil control. I am very new to the study of the assassination of John Kennedy, and find all areas of study interesting. " 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. I hope this answers your question at least in part. Have a great Sunday! Mike

From DVP, http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...0b29d1e6fb9f760 In September of 2009, conspiracy theorist Robert Harris started the forum thread linked above, wherein he was positive that Texas Highway Patrol Officer Bobby M. Nolan had not placed his initials on Commission Exhibit No. 842 (the "foreign body" envelope containing bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist), which is an envelope that Nolan received from Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell. Harris said this in the above-linked thread: "The [Connally] fragments were labelled as CE842. .... Where do you see Nolan's initials [on CE842]? .... There is NO envelope among all the records that are available to the public which contain Nolan's initials. That envelope was destroyed." -- Robert Harris; September 8, 2009 But when eagle-eyed "ShutterBun" discovered the very next day that Bobby Nolan's initials were, in fact, on CE842 (but the envelope needed to be turned upside-down to read the initials properly), Bob Harris was forced to eat a substantial bit of crow concerning this issue and was forced to acknowledge that Nolan's initials are, indeed, visible on CE842. Here is ShutterBun's 9/9/09 post concerning the verification of Nolan's initials: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...5e6514781981040 Well, Robert Harris wasn't bound to accept total defeat regarding this CE842 issue. Since he could no longer claim that Nolan's initials were not on the envelope in question, Harris decided to look more closely at some of the other initials that appear on that piece of evidence. And what did Mr. Harris find? He found that Audrey Bell's initials had very likely been planted or forged onto CE842 (and somebody else's initials had been crudely erased right underneath Bell's initials). Harris makes this allegation regarding the alleged "forged" initials of Audrey Bell in an Internet forum thread he started at John Simkin's Education Forum last month, on April 19, 2010 (and he has probably made the very same allegation at other Internet forums too): "The FBI...altered the evidence envelope that held the bullet and forged the name of nurse Audrey Bell, to make it appear that the envelope held the fragments from Connally's wrist, instead of the bullet from his leg." -- Robert Harris; 4/19/10 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15792 Well, here on May 16, 2010, eight months after the confirmation of Bobby Nolan's initials on the envelope seen in CE842, I decided to take another look at Bob Harris' video called "The Scam Of CE399" (which was recently made available on Jim DiEugenio's CTKA.net website as well). http://jfkhistory.com/ce399f/ce399f.mov And then I decided to perform the same simple piece of investigation that ShutterBun had performed in September 2009 -- I simply turned Commission Exhibit No. 842 upside-down and looked at the initials that Harris is claiming are the "forged" initials of nurse Audrey Bell. And what did I find? I found that the initials that Harris believes are Bell's are, in fact, the initials of Dallas Police Captain J. Will Fritz ("JWF"). Let's have a look: Here's CE842 as it appears on page 841 of Warren Commission Volume 17: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0434a.htm And to confirm that the "JWF" initials that we see in CE842 are consistent with the known handwriting of Captain John Will Fritz of the Dallas Police Department, I looked up several different documents that contained Fritz' signature, and I confirmed that the "JWF" seen in CE842 does, indeed, match the handwriting of Fritz (see the three examples linked below; and pay particular attention to the way Captain Fritz writes the letter "W", with very sharp points at the bottom of each "W"): http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0494-002.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0497-002.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0500-002.gif And, btw, in Robert Harris' very own telephone interview with Bobby Nolan, Nolan told Harris that after he received the envelope from Nurse Bell at Parkland, he then took the envelope to the Dallas Police Department and turned it over to "someone...in Will Fritz' office": "When I took the bullet down to the police department, I gave it to someone there. .... IT WAS IN WILL FRITZ' OFFICE." -- Bobby M. Nolan; Via telephone conversation between Nolan and Robert Harris; circa 2009 (Emphasis added by DVP) Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to find Fritz' initials ("JWF") on that envelope in CE842. I guess Mr. Harris didn't learn his lesson last September. That lesson being this one: Before accusing people of planting or forging evidence in the JFK murder case, be sure to look at all of the evidence UPSIDE-DOWN. And that really should be an easy rule for conspiracy theorists to follow too, because all of their theories about the JFK assassination are always upside-down and topsy-turvy anyway. So, I guess Bob Harris will need to revise his conspiracy theory concerning CE842 yet again. And this time I would assume that Harris will claim that Captain Fritz' "JWF" initials have been "forged" onto the envelope. Right, Bob? How could someone have missed such an obvious error? More importantly, after having been shown such an error, why would someone continue on knowing they were wrong? The snake oil business must be booming.

Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip. The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today. However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity. Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some RECENT articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS. In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today. If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity. I almost laughed when I read that. I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities. So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is. I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource. Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally? Do you know Chuck Hawks? So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics? Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask. HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"? By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting. You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then.... It would get might quiet around here.....

Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip. The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today. However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity. Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some RECENT articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS. In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today. If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity. Thankfully we dont have to make Pat suffer all of that as the terminology is rather well defined. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html For those who missed it the first time. Oswalds rifle tested at 2165fps. Its really that simple.

Im sure John will rest much better knowing you approve.......

I haven't run across it in my study of Ferrie. I can say that his FAA records give no indication that he was qualified to fly helicopters. BTW, Mitchell: We need to gab about Ferrie a bit. Indeed, you Ferrie guys should get together. There was a guy from Morgan City who was involved in anti-Castro operations who did fly a helicopter whose name I believe was Leroy Young. BK BK this might be EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thanks and thanks to all for the info and time to reply! Best, Mike

83???? God bless ya Jack! May you have many many many more! Mike

Jim, What ever gave you the idea that he was only an expert in "tommy guns and .45's"? When in fact Frazier shot on a rifle team for a number of years. So far you have not put me in a position to have to think at all, besting you has been a simple matter of displaying very simple to find testimony. As I said, about as difficult as beating Helen Keller at darts. I would also note that the 6.5mm rifle is not obscure at all and is in point of fact a very well regarded hunting rifle in Europe to this day. I do not know where you come up with such nonsense. So i have to return the question to you, have you studied the evidence at all? I suggest you study some ballistics before you give yourself a real case of athletes tongue. Obviously this is an area you know very little about.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html Additionally Oswalds rifle held an average velocity of 2165fps per Frazier (WCH3p399-400) But dont let the facts slow you down Jim. As usual you have no clue what you are talking about. Jim, How typical of you. Posner may have said it was 2000fps, but Frazier actually tested the rifle. Who would you think would be more credible? Multiple tests show the average velocity is 2165fps, which is in the high velocity range. Furthermore in 1963 the term high velocity would have been just as subjective as it is today. Again Mr. Speer appears to be correct in a matter that you seem incompetent to comprehend. Of course as you so often do you cite the source that is the least accurate because it seems to hold with whatever point you are fumbling to make. You are a snake oil salesman. Now this appears to be strike 3 Jim. I hope you have better than this.

Jim, Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet. Mike That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was. By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter. I read the article, it was worth the laugh. SO you question Fraziers expertise in regard to rifles in particular. Speculating that of course maybe he was no expert with rifles but rather Machine guns and/ or handguns. Comical. Handgun and machine gun cartridge velocities are calculated exactly the same as rifle cartridges, so I feel Frazier was competent enough to make a simple velocity calculation, which was what I cited him on. Regardless. Had you done any research on Frazier you would easily find that: Your challenge of Fraziers qualifications is idiotic at best, and borders on feeble stupidity. His qualifications are right there in his WC testimony. So this appears to be strike two Jim. Your wrong about the term high velocity, as Pat has corrected you so many times, and you did not even take the time to review Fraziers qualifications before dismissing his claims. What kind of research is this? As for claiming that Frazier was not a "firearms expert", how could you be so obtuse as to have made such an idiotic remark? Jim please tell me this is not all you have. Debating you so far has been like besting Helen Keller at a game of darts. Mike

i have heard referances to ferrie flying helicopters but have never really checked it out i think he did tho Thanks Jerry, I lack knowledge on Ferrie to be honest. I know he was a plane pilot, but was curious about helos as well. Mike I am currently writing a book on the Garrison investigation, and I have done a thorough search of all the records regarding David Ferrie, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Ferrie flew helicopters, and also, I interviewed many Ferrie friends / associates, and none of them could confirm that Ferrie even knew how to fly a helicopter. If you turn up anything at all, please do let me know, however, I do believe that your search will lead to nothing. Mitchell Warriner Mitchell, I surely will keep you in the loop. Feel free to contact me at Mike@JFKBallistics.com if I can ever be of service. A pleasure to meet you and thank you for the information. Mike

Jim, Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet. Mike That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was. By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter. Quick response.... what is you know re: case ballisitcs that the FBI/ DPD don't? Neither could with reasonable certainty place the MC in LHO's hands, nor that he fired a .38 that afternoon? Who needs ballistics debate? PROOF! Sounds ike disinfo nonsense.... Complete and utter denial does not and will never displace the facts.

i have heard referances to ferrie flying helicopters but have never really checked it out i think he did tho Thanks Jerry, I lack knowledge on Ferrie to be honest. I know he was a plane pilot, but was curious about helos as well. Mike

Jim, Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet. Mike That is one of the most moronic ballistic writings I have ever read. I should have known who the author was. By the way Jim, writing an idiotic paper does not constitute a debate with me on ballistics, what it does is shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html Additionally Oswalds rifle held an average velocity of 2165fps per Frazier (WCH3p399-400) But dont let the facts slow you down Jim. As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.

Jim, Any time you would like to debate ballistics with me, just let me know. You think O'Reily made you look like a moron, you have not seen anything yet. Mike

Does anyone have any reference to Ferrie flying Helicopters? Im still tracking down that Ohio lead. Thanks a bunch guys for your help! Mike

Jim, I have tried to correct you on this before, but you apparently refuse to let go of a factoid once in your bear-like grip. The "high-velocity" argument is a flawed one. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, there were but two ways to describe the velocity of a rifle: Low velocity and High-velocity. All rifle wounds outside of those created by .22s and varmint rifles were considered high-velocity. The dividing line was basically the speed of sound. Subsonic=Low velocity. Supersonic=high velocity. Some books still use this dividing line today. However, with the development of the M-16, and the increased velocity of similar weapons, SOME writers and researchers moved the line upward, and started calling rifles that fire bullets 2400 FPS or greater high-velocity, and bullets traveling above the speed of sound, but below 2400 FPS. medium velocity. Even this, however, is not written in concrete, as I have seen some articles claiming the dividing line is 2000 FPS. In short, there is not a strict definition of high-velocity and medium velocity that rules out the M/C rifle as the assassination rifle. Not in 1963. Not today. If you know any different, please cite articles from the 50's and before that discuss medium-velocity weapons and ammunition. I've read dozens of books and articles on wound ballistics and haven't seen any prior to the assassination that referred to WW-II era rifle ammunition as medium velocity. Pat, You need to begin such posts with a warning that it has common sense content, other wise Jim is prone to spitting sputtering and seizure like movements. Of course you are correct in your high velocity assessment. Why does it not amaze me that Jim can not comprehend this.

Dean, You are wise beyond your beers! Best to you my friend! Mike

Evan, I believe everything has its place. But will say that by and large I am against censorship. I agree with you 100% in that it is the parents responsibility to monitor the child's exposure. In my opinion, and for what its worth, all things have to be put into perspective. In the recent photos posted here at the Ed Forum for example, one must weigh the evidential value against the offensiveness of the image. It would seem those pictures were posted in order to prove or disprove two points. One whether or not Oswald was circumcised, and the other being the "adequate" status of his equipment. Neither of these is ground breaking to the case, and the latter is certainly so subjective as to offer little proof to anything, "adequate" being a subjective and relative term. They certainly will not prove nor disprove the Judyth issue, as her fable has many more mountains to climb. So all in all it was a worthless posting, which by the way, could have been researched among those that cared to, via email. We all know how to use email...don't we? Up until the ridiculous posting, I allowed my son to read the Ed forum, as in recent time he has shown a great interest in history, and JFK in particular. I do not think I will allow that any longer, as the posters of such images show poor discretion and I no longer have any comfort in knowing that those among us would not post such things in a forum where students of all ages might be reading. Mike “Up until the ridiculous posting, I allowed my son to read the Ed forum, as in recent time he has shown a great interest in history, and JFK in particular. I do not think I will allow that any longer, as the posters of such images show poor discretion and I no longer have any comfort in knowing that those among us would not post such things in a forum where students of all ages might be reading.” OH PLEASE! You made or referred to no less than 5 adolescent jokes about LHO’s penis in less than 3 hours! And you also referred to a penis using slang terms no less than 4 times! And after doing that you have the audacity to write “as the posters of such images show poor discretion and I no longer have any comfort in knowing that those among us would not post such things in a forum where students of all ages might be reading.”???? What a hypocrite. Tell us, did you allow your son to read your jokes and your slang? Care to show me where I posted one obscene word? Even the slang I used was not anything obscene. So what are you whining about? I gave the thread the obvious contempt it deserved, it was and is moronic to post pictures like that where children may be reading.

Evan, I believe everything has its place. But will say that by and large I am against censorship. I agree with you 100% in that it is the parents responsibility to monitor the child's exposure. In my opinion, and for what its worth, all things have to be put into perspective. In the recent photos posted here at the Ed Forum for example, one must weigh the evidential value against the offensiveness of the image. It would seem those pictures were posted in order to prove or disprove two points. One whether or not Oswald was circumcised, and the other being the "adequate" status of his equipment. Neither of these is ground breaking to the case, and the latter is certainly so subjective as to offer little proof to anything, "adequate" being a subjective and relative term. They certainly will not prove nor disprove the Judyth issue, as her fable has many more mountains to climb. So all in all it was a worthless posting, which by the way, could have been researched among those that cared to, via email. We all know how to use email...don't we? Up until the ridiculous posting, I allowed my son to read the Ed forum, as in recent time he has shown a great interest in history, and JFK in particular. I do not think I will allow that any longer, as the posters of such images show poor discretion and I no longer have any comfort in knowing that those among us would not post such things in a forum where students of all ages might be reading. Mike

Thanks B!

I am not aware of anything specific about this claim. There was nothing indicated in the documents related to the FBI exam of the limo, though, as the FBI memo states, they did not pull up the carpeting at that time, just around the edges. However, Vaughn Ferguson replaced the limo carpeting in early December, and there was no mention of any defect in the floor at that time either. Pamela, I was hoping you would chime in. I really had little faith in this, its just one of those strange things you encounter in research I suppose. I consider you to be one of the most knowledgeable about the limo, so I will be writing this off as an odd inaccuracy. Thank You. Mike Mike, Thanks for the support. This is something that may be a limo myth, but it might not hurt to keep the door open just in case something else pops up. While I have spoken with Robert Frazier and feel fairly sure he is not deliberately hiding anything, it seems to me that the limo exam was too little, too late, and that didn't bother him at all. So it concerns me that he didn't see a need to 'think outside the box' and start asking serious questions about what had happened not only during the assassination, but in the intervening 12 hours when the SS had control of the limo. Ironically, our only glimpse so far into the life of someone who was really concerned with what happened to the limo is Vaughn Ferguson, whose memo caused an uproar in DC and was the catalyst for the Rowley letter of Jan 64 being written to Lee Rankin. Frankly, the discussion in the main Judyth thread has disintegrated so irreparably, I have stopped even looking at it. It is a refreshing change to get back to the limo. Pamela and Pat, Point received. I will file this one away then and not in the disregard bin! If either of you ever needs to contact me privately my email is Mike@JFKBallistics.com If you would ever like to have any of your work posted there let me know, it would be an honor. My best to you both, Mike