Mike Williams

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.

LEST ANYONE DOUBT THE INCOMPETENCE OF MIKE WILLIAMS

This guy cannot possibly have been a ballistics expert or he would not be peddling nonsense about the Mannlicher-Carcano

And if anyone harbors any doubt, this guy has announced himself as a "lone-nutter". So what is he doing on this forum? It

was obvious to me from the beginning that he was not a former Master Gunnery Sergeant. No NCO of that rank would be

calling everyone who posted "Sir" nor would they be making vacuous posts. He cannot be the person that he claims to be.

Go back and read some of his past posts. They are virtually devoid of content. The guy has nothing of value to contribute.

Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth

By Mike Nelson

Myths and errors regarding the path of a bullet generally come from a lack of understanding of the forces acting on the bullet before, during, and after its path through the barrel. This article will deal with the primary forces on a bullet's trajectory, and it will mention a few of the secondary forces. The approach is directed toward the average reader. There is no attempt to address concerns of the mathematician or physicist, who should either know this material or should read a more technical and comprehensive treatise.

One of the more pervasive myths associated with bullet trajectory is that "bullets always rise right after they leave the barrel." In general, bullets do rise after leaving the barrel, and they immediately begin to drop. This is not a contradiction, and the explanation is not difficult to understand.

Bullets are affected by gravity whether in flight or not, and, when they leave the barrel, they no longer have any physical support, such as the brass, the box, your pocket, the magazine, the chamber, or the barrel, so they begin to fall. In addition, they are traveling through air, so air resistance progressively slows their flight. On most occasions the barrel is slanted upward slightly to compensate for this immediate drop; thus, for all but extreme shots, since the barrel is aimed slightly upward, the bullet does, indeed, rise slightly after it leaves the barrel, but it bullet never rises above the axis of the barrel. (Just like a football generally rises above the player when they throw a pass. The longer the pass, the greater the starting angle, and the higher the "rise" before the ball begins to fall.)

In scientific terms, "thrown" objects, whether by hand, explosion, springs, compressed air, or other forces, are called "projectiles," their path in space is called their "trajectory," and the study of their trajectories is called "ballistics." Those who fail to understand the elementary physics of ballistics often misinterpret the configuration of barrel and the line of sight and assume that something "special" happens to the bullet during its flight. Many things happen, but nothing "special;" bullets fly just like any other projectile and are subject to the same laws of physics.

The following drawings, though not to exact scale, show the typical paths of bullets and the relationship of these paths to the line of sight, whether determined by open sights or optical sights.

Horizontal Shot. If the barrel is horizontal to the surface of the earth when fired, the bullet never rises above the barrel, and gravity causes an immediate descent.

Typical Alignment. Generally, for what we consider a "horizontal" shot, the sight alignment places the barrel in a slightly upward tilt, and the bullet starts its arc, rises slightly above the level of the muzzle, but never above the axis of the barrel, reaches a peak, then descends. Figure 2 is the graph of a centerfire rifle cartridge that stays within a 6 inch circle for a distance of about 210 yards. Sighted in at approximately 170 yards, this round is approximately 3 inches high at 100 yards and three inches low at approximately 210 yards. You must, of course, always check trajectory data for your particular rifle and cartridge combination.

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.

Since the barrel is generally directed at an angle to the line of sight, sighting directly upward or directly downward results in a trajectory that deviates even more from the line of sight than the typical, relatively level shot. Still, the effects of gravity and air resistance are the same as far as the bullet is concerned, it is just that the trajectory at such a steep angle is more divergent from the line of sight.

Secondary Ballistics Phenomena. In general, bullets follow a parabolic arc. In reality, that arc is modified significantly by air resistance, which slows the bullet during flight and effects a shortening of the arc down range. That is why the highest point of the usable portion of the trajectory is not the midpoint of that trajectory. Bullet shape and the spin from rifling also influence the trajectory slightly by reducing air resistance and stabilizing bullet orientation. That is why a 500 grain rifle bullet, for example, has a much better trajectory than a 500 grain ball from a smooth bore, all other things being equal.

Fact or Myth. So, does a bullet rise after it leaves the muzzle? One says, "yes." Another says, "no." Who is correct? Both could be correct because of different meanings associated with the word, "rise." They might argue incessantly, but their argument will not change the physical aspects of the path of the bullet. If they would concentrate on discussing the physical events, they would eventually conclude that they were each using the word, "rise," differently or that one of them did not understand elementary ballistics.

Thought Question. When sighted in for a typical hunting or target situation, what is the path of the bullet in relation to the sight picture if the rifle is aimed directly up or down

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.....

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?!?

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.....

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.

Pat,

Give this a shot (not to make a pun). 2,000 fps is not high-velocity. If you want a short-cut, try this:

"Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth", by Mike Nelson

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm

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.

Mike Nelson knows his stuff. There are others around here who don't. You can probably figure it out.

Jim

Pat,

Here is my suggestion as an exercise in concept formation. Create a list of the weapons discussed in my article,

for example, ranked by their muzzle velocities, including 30.06, M-1, Mannlicher-Carcano and so on and see how

it lays out. Determine if there are many weapons with velocities above 2,000 pfs and how many are below. See

if there are clusters, say, around 3,000 fps, 2,500 fps, and so on. Then ask what would make sense as a form of

short-hand to refer to those in the highest cluster, the middle cluster, and those below. That should provide you

with a rough handle on the meaning of "high", "medium", and "low" velocity. In particular, if there turn out to be

many weapons with velocities higher than the Mannlicher-Carano, what would they be called if we were to call the

Mannlicher-Carcano "high velocity"? I think you are the right person to pursue this. And I recommend using the

data from my article in conducting this survey, since I made a point of using sources that were contemporaneous

with the assassination to insure they were not affected by intel agencies who were trying to diminish the point I,

Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden and Peter Model, and Harry Livingstone were making. See if we were right or

not. And toss in more recent data if you like. Let's see where all this comes out about the phrase "high velocity".

Many thanks!

Jim

Jim, I know that others, including Weisberg, for whom I have a great deal of respect, have been making the "Mannlicher-Carcano rifles weren't high-velocity weapons" argument for 30 years or more. Which is why I accepted it for several years. UNTIL I started reading books and articles on wound ballistics. As stated, you will not find pre-assassination references to WWII rifles as medium velocity weapons.

The argument is a red herring. In your article you acknowledge:

Since John Withers observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination. Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.

This proves my point. The article does not claim a bullet traveling at 1890 FPS is symptomatic of a medium velocity or low velocity weapon, it says merely that such a bullet is traveling at a "slower velocity" than the higher velocity bullets discussed elsewhere in the article. Your claim that this "supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon" is just not true, and is akin to saying that because LeBron James is shorter than Shaquille O'Neal, we can consider him a "short" man.

Pat,

Many others have studied this matter and concluded as I have concluded:

Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden,

JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY (1976), and Robert Groden and Harry

Livingstone, HIGH TREASON (1989). If you read MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), you would know that. It's "Smoking Gun #3" on page 5.

I did a study of a page from CASE CLOSED (2003) where I discussed this,

"Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies", in THE FOURTH DECADE (January

1998), pp. 8-12, and http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

As with respect to the medical evidence, this appears to be another case

where you insist you are right when you are actually wrong. Check it out.

Jim

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

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.....

Pat,

Here is my suggestion as an exercise in concept formation. Create a list of the weapons discussed in my article,

for example, ranked by their muzzle velocities, including 30.06, M-1, Mannlicher-Carcano and so on and see how

it lays out. Determine if there are many weapons with velocities above 2,000 pfs and how many are below. See

if there are clusters, say, around 3,000 fps, 2,500 fps, and so on. Then ask what would make sense as a form of

short-hand to refer to those in the highest cluster, the middle cluster, and those below. That should provide you

with a rough handle on the meaning of "high", "medium", and "low" velocity. In particular, if there turn out to be

many weapons with velocities higher than the Mannlicher-Carano, what would they be called if we were to call the

Mannlicher-Carcano "high velocity"? I think you are the right person to pursue this. And I recommend using the

data from my article in conducting this survey, since I made a point of using sources that were contemporaneous

with the assassination to insure they were not affected by intel agencies who were trying to diminish the point I,

Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden and Peter Model, and Harry Livingstone were making. See if we were right or

not. And toss in more recent data if you like. Let's see where all this comes out about the phrase "high velocity".

Many thanks!

Jim

Jim, I know that others, including Weisberg, for whom I have a great deal of respect, have been making the "Mannlicher-Carcano rifles weren't high-velocity weapons" argument for 30 years or more. Which is why I accepted it for several years. UNTIL I started reading books and articles on wound ballistics. As stated, you will not find pre-assassination references to WWII rifles as medium velocity weapons.

The argument is a red herring. In your article you acknowledge:

Since John Withers observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination. Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.

This proves my point. The article does not claim a bullet traveling at 1890 FPS is symptomatic of a medium velocity or low velocity weapon, it says merely that such a bullet is traveling at a "slower velocity" than the higher velocity bullets discussed elsewhere in the article. Your claim that this "supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon" is just not true, and is akin to saying that because LeBron James is shorter than Shaquille O'Neal, we can consider him a "short" man.

Pat,

Many others have studied this matter and concluded as I have concluded:

Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden,

JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY (1976), and Robert Groden and Harry

Livingstone, HIGH TREASON (1989). If you read MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), you would know that. It's "Smoking Gun #3" on page 5.

I did a study of a page from CASE CLOSED (2003) where I discussed this,

"Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies", in THE FOURTH DECADE (January

1998), pp. 8-12, and http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

As with respect to the medical evidence, this appears to be another case

where you insist you are right when you are actually wrong. Check it out.

Jim

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

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.

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)

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.

Actually, John, you have made an extremely interesting post on the Hartwell thread,

which suggested to me that you are giving this more thought that your posts display.

I resent that Jim, I think I'm the one who has made the least intersting post in this topic.

egit:typo

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

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

Mike

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

Feeble response, but no doubt the best you could do. He was a "firearms expert", but with respect to tommy guns and .45s, not

obscure WWII Italian carbines, such as the one Lee Oswald was alleged to have used. It's a simple "fallacy of equivocation"

but slick enough to take in a "lone-nutter"! Have you ever actually studied the evidence? Thinking clearly is not your long suit.

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.

Unlike my article, which was based upon the study of multiple sources, where

I made a point of looking for those that were published around the time of the

assassination, this one you seem to have pulled from you rear has nothing to do

with the Mannlicher-Carcano. So you are faking it, just as it you seem to be faking

your standing as a Master Gunnery Sergeant. You might want to read my article if

you actually have any interest in the facts of the matter--which you clearly don't!

Even Posner admitted that the M-C had a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs. Check it.

quote name='Mike Williams' date='May 14 2010, 10:59 PM' post='192779']

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)

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.

You haven't even had time to read my article. And, if you actually had read it, you would not be citing Frazier as a source. True to form, you appear to be faking it all the way:

Fallacy #8: page 104, lines 27 to 30:

Posner: "The 6.5 mm bullet, when fired, is like a flying drill," says Art Pence, a competitions firearms expert. Some game hunters use the 6.5 mm shell to bring down animals as large as elephants."

This passage combines fallacies of equivocation and appeals to authority with the argumentative strategy known as divide and conquer. Note that the "firearms experts" upon whom Posner relies are Art Pence, who is said to be a "competitions firearms expert", and Robert Frazier, the FBI "firearms expert". Competition firearms is a distinct class of weapons from big game weapons which is a distinct class of weapons from handguns and machine guns which is a distinct class of weapons from military rifles (among which the Mannlicher-Carcano is especially obscure). See, for example, Fadala's Rifle Guide, Leyson's New Guns Annual, or Quertermous and Quertermous' Modern Guns and other similar references. Merely because Art Pence may be an expert on competition firearms does not make him an expert on military firearms, especially obscure ones. Moreover, I nowhere find Frazier described except as a "firearms expert", but his area of expertise could be that of handguns and machine guns (with which the FBI is undoubtedly familiar) rather than of military firearms, especially obscure ones. Thus, the use of the term "firearms expert" might be based upon his knowledge with respect to weapons of one kind and conceal his actual ignorance with respect to weapons of another kind. That is the fallacy of equivocation. When you appeal to an expert in one field as an authority in another in relation to which he is not expert, however, you also commit a fallacious appeal to authority. In this instance, the equivocation is used to conceal a probably fallacious appeal to authority. The divide and conquer move is actually fascinating. If you cannot defeat an argument, then divide it into parts and defeat its parts. In this case, if you cannot exonerate the Mannlicher-Carcano as a half-way decent weapon, then separate the rifle from its bullets and exonerate the bullets. The actual effects of firing any rifle, of course, results from the interaction of various factors, including the rifle, the ammunition, the shooter and the target, so perhaps you can make a more plausible case for the bullet than you can for the rifle. (That this is doubtful in this case is suggested by the discussion of Fallacy #4, but perhaps it's worth a try, if your other arguments are not doing the job.) The elephant hunting allusion intrigued me, so I was dumbstruck when I discovered the following comments on 6.5 mm ammunition in Fadala's Rifle Guide, pp. 38-39: "The 6.5 mm was the darling of the rich and famous hunters of the early 1900s who carried the Mannlicher carbine all over the world. A few hunted elephants with the little gun. Even Elmer Keith, the big-bore guru, stated in American Rifleman magazine that the 6.5 mm was deadlier that its bore size." This sounds like something Posner could have used, except that the Mannlicher that the rich and famous hunters carried all over the world in the early 1900s was a high-quality rifle produced in the 1890s and not the shoddy Mannlicher-Carcano of World War II. (See Peterson, Encyclopedia of Firearms, pp. 195-196, on the Mannlicher, Quertemous and Quertemous, Modern Guns, p. 202, on the Mannlicher-Carcano.)

We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost.

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

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:

Mr. EISENBERG - Could you briefly state your training and experience in the fields of firearms, firearms identification, and ballistics?

Mr. FRAZIER - Beginning in 1937, I was on the University of Idaho Rifle Team, and the following year, 1938. In 1939 I enlisted in the National Guard and for 2 years was on the National Guard Rifle Team firing both small bore, or .22 caliber weapons, and the large bore, .30 caliber weapons, both being of the bolt- action type weapons.

In 1939 and 1940 I instructed in firearms in the Army of the United States, and acquired additional experience in firing of weapons, training in firing at moving targets, additional training in firing the .45 caliber automatic and machine-guns. And to further my firearms, practical firearms training, I received in 1942 a training course offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after entering on duty with that organization in--on June 9, 1941. That firearms training course consisted of a basic training in handguns-- that is, revolvers and automatic pistols, training in autoloading rifles, training in submachine guns, shotguns, and various other types of firearms.

One year later, approximately 1943, I received a specialized administrative firearms course which qualified me for training other agents in the field of law-enforcement type firearms.

Over the past 23 years, I have received the regular FBI firearms training, which is a monthly retraining in firearms, and a periodic, or every 4 years, de tailed retraining in the basic FBI firearms--the firearms training with the rifle, submachine gun, shotgun, revolver.

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

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

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

We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost.

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

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.

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

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

We have: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html You lost.

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

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.

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)

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

Monk,

Your concerns are well-founded. After I made the following comment,

which was reposted in post #2558, Williams responded in post #2559:

From #2558:

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

From #2559:

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Now this guy claims to have been a Master Gunnery Sergeant. But a

Master Gunnery Sergeant would know that a weapon with a muzzle

velocity of 2,000 fps is not high velocity, as many students before me

have observed. Since JFK was killed by the impact of high velocity

bullets but the only weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have

fired them, JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this guy

says, "Oswald innocent: In a word Delusional." To which I say:

"Master Gunnery Sergeant: In a word Unbelievable!" He cannot

possibly be the former USMC NCO that he pretends to be. And his

posts are among the most pointless that any of us have ever seen.

Jim

When I first joined this forum and noticed a post had been made by a "Mike Williams" regarding ballistics, I thought I knew who he was from my previous experience. I quickly decided that this was not who I thought it was...unless he has really changed since then. I hope this is just the wrong guy, because the alternative (that he just changed and became a Neanderthal) is disturbing.

Mike Williams

Mike is currently Assistant Chief of Uniformed Patrol and Support Services Command at the Chattanooga Police Department in Tennessee. He supervises about 450 of the department’s 650 sworn and civilian employees. He was a former director of training at the Chattanooga Police Academy and was full time SWAT Team commander for serveral years. As a 33 year Law Enforcement veteran and a 25 year veteran SWAT officer, he served as an operator, Team Leader and Team Commander and still acts as a senior advisor and trainer for Chattanooga SWAT. He is a member of the IALEFI Board of Directors and editor of its magazine, The Firearms Instructor. Mike testifies as an expert witness in State and Federal Courts on the Police Use of Force and tactical team operations and teaches Team One’s Tactical Commander Course.

Is this you Commander Williams? Please say it ain't so...

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.

Censorship is BAD

I control what my children watch on TV and view on the internet

Its my job to censor what my children view

Its not the USAs job to censor what I as an adult watch or view

Dean,

You are wise beyond your beers!

Best to you my friend!

Mike

I'm going to start this thread here then move into its more appropriate place, in the PC sub-forum. That way a link will be left here on the JFK forum and people can follow it back if they are interested.

Censorship is an issue close to my heart. In Australia, our esteemed leaders wish to place a mandatory filter on our internet (see another thread about this in this sub-forum), in order to protect young children from inappropriate images, etc. I object to this, believing it is a parental responsibility and, as an adult, if I wish to view adult images I should be allowed to do so.

Anyway - censorship. A number of members expressed opinions about images being displayed. This made me think about my visits to the US and my surprise about the censorship that occurs there. I'd like to describe my experience and ask others to post their own experiences and opinions.

I found it amazing that US television censored things that I would consider innocuous. When watching the movie 'Kill Bill', I was confused that violence could be shown but they changed the name of a car from "Pussy Wagon" to "Party Wagon". I was also surprised by the censoring of "god damn", and not showing two raised fingers (the reverse of Churchill's V For Victory)... or even sometimes blocking out the single finger "bird"!

So - can there be an agreed definition of what is obscene or inappropriate? Is the best censorship..NO censorship?

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.

I'm going to start this thread here then move into its more appropriate place, in the PC sub-forum. That way a link will be left here on the JFK forum and people can follow it back if they are interested.

Censorship is an issue close to my heart. In Australia, our esteemed leaders wish to place a mandatory filter on our internet (see another thread about this in this sub-forum), in order to protect young children from inappropriate images, etc. I object to this, believing it is a parental responsibility and, as an adult, if I wish to view adult images I should be allowed to do so.

Anyway - censorship. A number of members expressed opinions about images being displayed. This made me think about my visits to the US and my surprise about the censorship that occurs there. I'd like to describe my experience and ask others to post their own experiences and opinions.

I found it amazing that US television censored things that I would consider innocuous. When watching the movie 'Kill Bill', I was confused that violence could be shown but they changed the name of a car from "Pussy Wagon" to "Party Wagon". I was also surprised by the censoring of "god damn", and not showing two raised fingers (the reverse of Churchill's V For Victory)... or even sometimes blocking out the single finger "bird"!

So - can there be an agreed definition of what is obscene or inappropriate? Is the best censorship..NO censorship?

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

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr06.html SOMETHING HERE ABOUT RUBY AND LEE AND OHIO....B

Thanks B!

I read something about this the other day, and it was vague. Can anyone offer more reference or documentation for this? Was there any specific location for this hole?

Any help is much appreciated.

Mike

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