Mike Williams

I am trying to run down a lead right now on something. Does anyone have any instances of Oswald being in Ohio, at any time?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

MIke

Mike,

I once thought he had been to Toledo because I came across a job application with DeVilbiss which had on the form a Toledo address. I found out much later that DeVilbiss also had an office or plant very close to the Dallas Trade Mart. That in itself is thought provoking.

DeVilbiss btw, made spray guns similar to the type made by Rand Corp (of Robert Webster fame... who actually lived near Toledo....)

In short. Nope. Got nada on LHO being in Ohio. Maybe you could flip through your copy of "Harvey & Lee"? Harvey did seem to get around quite a bit. Who knows? Maybe he accompanied Ruth P during her eastern travels?

Greg,

Thanks much for the tip. Sure could not hurt to look.

Mike

I am trying to run down a lead right now on something. Does anyone have any instances of Oswald being in Ohio, at any time?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

MIke

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

I think the photos--in this instance--seeing as they appear to be inconsistent--are of a legitimate interest to researchers.

While Oswald's dingy may be offensive to some, this is THEIR problem, which should not become OUR problem. It was the FEAR of offensive photos, after all, that supposedly led to Earl Warren's refusing to let Dr. Humes study the photos of Kennedy, which resulted in much confusion, and helped make this forum a necessity.

One can't shy away from the gruesome in one's pursuit of truth, IMO. In my research, I have read hundreds of forensic publications, and have seen thousands of disgusting photos. Kids shot in the face with shotguns. Heads squashed by truck tires, and then stitched back together. Shrapnel wounds. Bodies pulled from lakes covered with leaches. Bodies found in basements covered with maggots. It's horrific. And yet the more horrific, the more likely it is to be published.

There are websites devoted to this stuff. News footage from around the world of gruesome car accidents. Heads in the road.

The dead have no privacy rights. News organizations sell their footage without obtaining releases. Forensic Pathologists retain the most gruesome photos for their personal records and then publish them in journals. No releases needed. Morgue employees sell their photos to the tabloids.

(Beyond Kennedy and Oswald, the autopsy photos of Marilyn Monroe, Tupac Shakur, John Lennon, etc. can be found on the internet.)

When you're dead, you are meat. Meat can be studied. And consumed.

As a compromise, however, I suggest that Jack and Jim or anyone wishing to refer back to photos of Oswald's dingy simply provide a link to said photo within their post. That way only those wanting to see the image will be subjected to it...

Pat,

If you wanna consume it go for it.

I have no issue with the study, but perhaps a better choice of arena would be better suited. Why not use Fetzers site? I mean hell no one goes there anyhow.

If anyone has made more meaningless posts than Mike Williams, I cannot imagine

whom that would be. Notice the contentlessness of each and every one of them,

none of which displays the least understanding of the issues under consideration.

And that pattern continues here. If anyone qualifies as a laughing stock, it is not

me or Jack or Dean or even Junkkarinenen, who raised the question that led to this

aspect of our investigation (about his circumcision), but he--Mike Williams--himself!

Fetzer,

I expected as much from someone who common sense seems to elude so often.

You Sir are a joke on any forum, or on any platform.

"This is America, you wanna be a nut, be a nut, and you Sir are a nut!"

Todd,

In the face of the absurdity of the whole thread, my comments are the least of the atrocities.

I would recommend that if the good "DR." Fetzer wishes to delve into examining a penis, he should do so on his own site. It would fit right in with the rest of the lunacy.

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates". We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy

This is absurd.

I am opposed to censorship of legitimate research. These photos have been public for 30+ years

that I know of. Prudery has no place in research. The photos are not obscene, though some prudes

are offended by nudity. These photos are not pleasant but are not gruesome, though some object

to viewing of corpses. I provided these photos, which I have had for 30+ years WITHOUT posting

them, at Jim's request because he was attempting to prove something. I believe the photos are

trivial to the search for the killers of JFK, but are part of the historical record and should not be

censored. As for LHO's privacy, it should be overridden by the ROLE HE PLAYED IN THE ASSASSINATION.

Even though he was innocent of the murder, his role was PATSY, and we are attempting to assemble

facts regarding how he was framed. The alleged role of JVB in this is being challenged, and some

are seeking to verify or falsify her allegations. It is likely that the person JVB calls Lee is the person

that John Armstrong shows is Harvey. So we are not discussing the privacy of Lee Harvey Oswald,

but of some unknown Hungarian youth we are trying to understand. I must note that John obtained

from Marina Oswald many far more gruesome photos of the corpse with permission to use them. I post

herewith a photo from the LHO exhumation provided to John Armstrong by Marina. I ask, which

is more objectionable...this view of the corpse's teeth or a photo of the victim's penis?

Jack

Jack wrote...

"I am opposed to censorship of legitimate research. These photos have been public for 30+ years

that I know of. Prudery has no place in research. The photos are not obscene, though some prudes

are offended by nudity. These photos are not pleasant but are not gruesome, though some object

to viewing of corpses. I provided these photos, which I have had for 30+ years WITHOUT posting

them, at Jim's request because he was attempting to prove something. I believe the photos are

trivial to the search for the killers of JFK, but are part of the historical record and should not be

censored."

I agree 100%, Jack.

It's absurd to censor these few photos.

For anyone worried about children seeing LHO's penis, are you not aware that XXX rated porn is just a few clicks away, easily available and even through Yahoo Images?

I for one am responsible enough not to let my child view such things. Unlike some who might not have the smarts to prohibit such things.

I completely agree with Kathys decision, and in fact I myself would have questioned the discretion of the poster and placed them on moderation.

Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates". We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy

This is absurd.

I am opposed to censorship of legitimate research. These photos have been public for 30+ years

that I know of. Prudery has no place in research. The photos are not obscene, though some prudes

are offended by nudity. These photos are not pleasant but are not gruesome, though some object

to viewing of corpses. I provided these photos, which I have had for 30+ years WITHOUT posting

them, at Jim's request because he was attempting to prove something. I believe the photos are

trivial to the search for the killers of JFK, but are part of the historical record and should not be

censored. As for LHO's privacy, it should be overridden by the ROLE HE PLAYED IN THE ASSASSINATION.

Even though he was innocent of the murder, his role was PATSY, and we are attempting to assemble

facts regarding how he was framed. The alleged role of JVB in this is being challenged, and some

are seeking to verify or falsify her allegations. It is likely that the person JVB calls Lee is the person

that John Armstrong shows is Harvey. So we are not discussing the privacy of Lee Harvey Oswald,

but of some unknown Hungarian youth we are trying to understand. I must note that John obtained

from Marina Oswald many far more gruesome photos of the corpse with permission to use them. I post

herewith a photo from the LHO exhumation provided to John Armstrong by Marina. I ask, which

is more objectionable...this view of the corpse's teeth or a photo of the victim's penis?

Jack

Hardly an accurate comparison.

I see people smiling on Television daily, but dont see the ole wangdoodle. If I had I certainly would not allow my children to see that.

How in the world is Oslwald's schlong going to further anything? It is but a minor contention point in the Judyth idiocy that needs to overcome much more than a tallywacker.

I certainly think the subject matter does not need this kind of ridiculousness to make or break any point.

Besides the fact that "impressive" in regard to someones "equipment" is completely subjective. A matter of opinion, in which case the whole "exhibit" is worthless.

I have to wonder, is it just the objective of some to make this forum a laughing stock?

It's not absurd at all. The image resides on I don't know how many private computers so for those interested further study is possible AND young students have a transformation that for many it is the responsibility that parents to oversee. Asking for consideration for this is not absurd.

John,

You are a man of good sense.

My best regard to you buddy.

This is incredible. Which posts have you made "invisible"? You are interfering with legitimate research on the

grounds that someone might be offended? That is beyond belief. And if I want to save my posts, can I do it?

My inference is that, having exposed another example of JFK photographic fakery, the forum is covering it up.

Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates". We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy

Only the incredulous Fetzer could procure such a moronic statement.

Up until yesterday, I allowed my 9 year old son to read this forum, as he has expressed an interest in the JFK Assassination. I for one am glad to see that someone finally brought some kind of sense to this idiotic thread. Kathy you are a blessing.

One would think there are many other facets of the totally moronic Judyth story to explore and verify than Oswalds dinger.

Did you honestly believe a foreskin would resolve the issue? Especially in the face of all her other idiocy?

I propose a class action suit. Anyone that has taken and "critical thinking course" taught by the illogical Fetzer should at once demand a refund!

I think this is a big deal

um.......never mind I just cant do it LOL

I think we can all relax now- we finally have found the second head shot...

Mr. Newell,

Sir you now have my complete reverence and vote for QUOTE of the week!

I think this is a big deal

um.......never mind I just cant do it LOL

I wonder why all the conspiracy people voted for C. Its rigged I tell ya, a dag gum conspiracy against A and B!

The

average erection of the male penis in the US is between six and seven

inches.

Now THATS what I can research dedication!

Maybe Judyth meant his rifle and not his gun there EL Capitan.

Well we now know the source of the mans inferiority complex........sheesh

No problem there Jack, was just an idea. I hope you are well.

MIke

Last night in my "third" Mac (formerly number one) I was looking for LHO autopsy

photos, and I found an LHO folder with more than a thousand LHO photos and studies.

Many of them date back thirty years or more. The LHO folder also includes Marguerite,

Marina, and Robert Oswald.

The thought occurred to me that present day researchers might like to see and study

them, if a way existed to present them UNCLUTTERED BY REPLIES, DISCUSSION,

AND CONTROVERSY. I would present each image with only minimal identification.

I would title the thread THE OSWALD FILE. Images would be random and added as

I have time.

So I thought that IF members would agree NOT TO REPLY IN A DEDICATED THREAD, but

copy each photo they want to discuss and start a new thread for that purpose, I would

do so. If not, such a thread would become highly unwieldy. I am not interested in

discussing the photos and studies IN A THREAD WHERE I POST THEM, but only if others

want to discuss them under the proposed conditions on threads that they start.

Would members agree to such a dedicated thread? How could it be enforced so that

only I could post to it? Could more image space be allotted to it? I think that members

might find it interesting to see some of these images.

Jack

Jack,

If you would so desire I can put the pictures up on my website, which has no forum, and they could be viewed from there. This would force the issue of the no reply request on your part. From there they could save the images and post them here as they wished for discussion.

Just an idea.

Mike

Must....keep.....digging.....lol.

Thanks for all the leads guys and gals. There has to be something somewhere.

I viewed the results first, and it now says already voted.

I never selected any choice.

mike. i have never been able to find any follow up on the report...another they dismissed....b

Several years ago, I actually contacted the Archives and got the follow-up report. Amazingly, Rosen--the same apathetic behind who refused to read the autopsy report--followed-up on the article in question by...calling Robert Bouck at the Secret Service to see if it was true. Bouck said no. END OF INVESTIGATION. No interviews with the men who pulled up the carpet. No interviews with the men who worked on the car. Nothing.

While Rosen is rarely discussed, he is one of those most responsible for the disgusting mess we have today. He also refused to acquire the autopsy report--which led to much confusion when the FBI started telling the press the autopsy report claimed the back wound bullet fell out, etc.

If the FBI could prove there was a bullet hole in the floor of the presidential limo, the stuff really hits the fan. If the bullet hole was from a shot fired from behind, there's at least one more shot to account for...and the 3-shot scenario from the 6th floor of the TSBD goes out the window. And if the bullet hole is from ANY other direction, the lone gunman theory is toast. So it was imperative that the FBI should NOT find a bullet hole in the floor of the limo, lest they open a can of worms that MANY folks didn't want opened. So "of course" they didn't interview the people who had examined the floor of the limo; any confirmation of a bullet hole there blows the entire case out of the water.

Quite incorrect.

It would depend where the hole was and its point of origin. If this hole could be shown to be from a bullet that entered JFK in the back and exited his throat, then only three shots would have been accounted for in this instance.

So the assertion that any hole blows the Lone shooter out of the water is false.

B..

B,

Thanks Bunch!

Interesting. Also interesting is that it just seems to fade off and not be followed up.

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

It was reported shortly after the assassination in the US News and World Report, I believe. There are also a series of FBI documents where they were following up on the report. I've never seen a specific location mentioned.

Todd,

Thanks for the tip. If you come across anything about his please pass it on to me will you?

Mike@JFKBallistics.com

Thanks buddy.

Mike

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

Hey Gang,

Just a quick invite for you to come see the new site I have been working on. www.JFKBallistics.com I have posted a few articles, and more to come. Right now I am posting the entire June 67 CBS News Inquiry (color version) in its entirety. I hope you enjoy!

I am also working on several articles that I hope will dispel some of the ballistic related myths of the JFK Assassination.

I hope you enjoy the site, and if there is something particular you would like to see written about, please feel free to contact me at:

Mike@JFKBallistics.com

Hope you all are well!

Mike

Good luck with your site Mike, but you have a few problems already.

For one, DVP has no common sense or else he would recognize that Oswald was set up as the Patsy.

For another, there aren't two sides to this coin as the assassination only happened one way. The CT vs. LN debate is over, and they are now both in the same camp, with the new line in the sand being draw between the CTs and LNs and those who recognize that whatever happened at Dealey Plaza, it was a coup and those who killed JFK took over the government.

And if there was only one gunman, the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, was a real pro, possibly the best assassin ever, and not the lone nut loser that DVP and others try to portray him. If the Sixth Floor Sniper did everything he is accused of, he was truely Great, succeeded in his mission, and got away.

Those are the facts as we know them today, and we are closer now than ever before of figuring out exactly what happened, who did it and how it was done, and the ballistics certainly play a major role in what happened and trying to figure it out exactly what that was, because the ballistics are science.

Hopefully you can answer some of the still outstanding questions concering the ballistics, though I think most of them, the important ones anyway, will have to wait until a more precise, proper, forensic autopsy can be peformed on the victim.

I do have a list of questions that you can work on though.

For starters, Tony Austin has an interesting article posted concerning the boxes, and what they were used for, that I'd like you to respond to.

Did the Sixth Floor Sniper use a box as a gun rest, or did he shoot without leaning the rifle on the box with a crease in it?

Did the Sixth Floor Sniper use the scope at all, and if so, how and when was it alligned?

Are there tests, including smell, to determine if a gun/rifle has been recently fired or fired at all, and was the rifle tested to see if it was fired recently?

Also, could the Sixth Floor Sniper have taken the same shots from a foot or two further back into the nest so that he couldn't be seen at all?

Has anyone been able to duplicate the single-bullet affects of the nearly intact bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland hospital?

Where did the bullet and shells found in the Sixth Floor Sniper's nest come from? You can't buy bullets one at a time, am I right? You have to buy them in boxes and they had to come from somewhere.

And as for the 67' CBS News inquiry, is there a transcript of that or are you just posting the show so it can be seen? This is an important show for a number of reasons. For one the Garrison case is happening at the same time in New Orleans, and for another, former Warren Commissioner John McCloy's daughter worked on the program. McCloy convinced the autopsy doctors to review the photos and x-rays for the first time, and Dr. Finck realized that he was hoodwinked by arriving late and during the brain exam, when they reviewed a nearly intact brain that had been in a jar since before JFK was killed, so it wasn't his brain.

Ballisticlly, the bullet to the head would have made a small hole going in, right, and then traveled through the brain leaving a clear path, and exiting through a larger hole that would bevel outwards, right?

How come none of the doctors who saw JFK's head or those who later reviewed the photos and x-rays or the brain see this?

And it is a shame that the ballistics can't put us in the mind of the Sixth Floor sniper and tell us what his motives are, but of the few things we know about him - he wore a white shirt, open at the colar, he wanted to be seen, he had a pattern bald spot on the top of his head, he didn't use the boxes as a gun rest, he took his good old time, he knew he was going to get away, and did.

Now what can the ballistics tell us?

Thanks for all your efforts, and Duncan too,

Bill Kelly

BK,

I understand your concerns. Frankly I am going to do my very best to present evidence that is viable. My intention is not to make a conclusions, my intention is to provide solid evidence and let the visitors to the site make their own conclusions.

I am working on something in regard to Austins article not. One issue I have is the pure amount of supposition in the article itself, and I think I can clearly show that the shooter did not fire from the right side of the window frame, as he contends, but did in fact use the boxes.

If there is anything that you would like to post there Bill, let me know, as you already know you have a spot on my site anyday!

As for the rest of your list. I will work on that as soon as I finish uploading the last day of the 67 CBS 4 parter to my video pages. I should have that done today.

My very best to you my friend.

MIke