Mike Williams

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

Pamela I'm not disputing that Oswald left his wedding ring at the Paine residence on the morning of the assassination and also know that there are letters to the Soviet embassy from both Marina and Lee requesting to go back to the Soviet Union. What I would dispute is that Lee was sending her back alone. I don't believe for a second that Lee would give his kids up in this manner. Marina would quite obviously get custody. What are others thoughts? Lee Hi Lee ... okay, here's my two cents ... What we know Oswald was doing on the evening of Thursday, November 21, 1963, was trying to get his family together ... wanting to get an apartment so they could all live together, him going out of his way to make up to her, help her with chores and playing with his babies that evening. And he promised her a washing machine. Marina, by her own telling, treated him badly that night ... she was in a snit and was not responsive to his pleas. That doesn't sound to me like a man planning to ship his wife and kids off to Russia ... and/or run off with another woman. He may have left his wedding ring behind as a message of sorts to Marina because he was hurt by the way she treated him the night before. Bests, Barb :-) Barb, One also has to ask Does this sound like a man who was planning on being killed and or imprisoned the next day? Interesting thought. Mike

In my opinion, it's a dumb bet. (No offense intended, Dean). It is counter-productive for sincere researchers to disqualify themselves on a "bet" over any single issue. Greg, How right you are! Mike

Dean, What a bold bet. I would think that if Fetzer is as sure of his "witness" as he claims, the least he could do is go all in with you and toss in the same wager. I for one could sure say I would not miss him much. Mike

Actually I think I posted that Image. I need to look at it again.

:ice

John, Quite right. Beating a dead horse just wastes my time. I showed what needed to be shown, and so the folly of this one has to go in the can and waste no more time on it. Mike That's fine Michael, although I know from numerous past experiences that you claim you won't talk about this in order to evade questions. And you will in fact, be attacking me again at the first opportunity. You have given the impression that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, in order to make his performance appear much better than it really was. Do you intend to leave it like that, or do you wish to man up and tell us who REALLY misrepresented those dimensions? And you made the statement that you confirmed that I got him booted out of a JFK forum. Would you like to correct that statement Michael? If not, then why do you refuse to give us the name of the forum? And finally, why don't you explain why you think that anyone shooting at a target four times larger than Kennedy's head, was duplicating Oswald's scenario? Robert Harris I always reserve the right to further euthanize more stupidity. Stop running Michael. BTW, you also denied that mag30th accused me of getting him kicked out of Duncan's forum. But in the email that you forwarded to me, he said, "And then I invited him to the forum and got this. Quote On: I cant post on the forum, Bob told the people that run the site that I was threatening to kill him and his family" Why are you protecting this lunatic, Michael? Is he going to be your new partner?? And here is the other stuff you are evading, reposted once again, You have given the impression that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, in order to make his performance appear much better than it really was. Do you intend to leave it like that, or do you wish to man up and tell us who REALLY misrepresented those dimensions? And you made the statement that you confirmed that I got him booted out of a JFK forum. Would you like to correct that statement Michael? If not, then why do you refuse to give us the name of the forum? And finally, why don't you explain why you think that anyone shooting at a target four times larger than Kennedy's head, was duplicating Oswald's scenario? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=190796

I agree we can get close, but then again I really dont think we need to be exact to perfection to test what we want to.

John, Quite right. Beating a dead horse just wastes my time. I showed what needed to be shown, and so the folly of this one has to go in the can and waste no more time on it. Mike That's fine Michael, although I know from numerous past experiences that you claim you won't talk about this in order to evade questions. And you will in fact, be attacking me again at the first opportunity. You have given the impression that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, in order to make his performance appear much better than it really was. Do you intend to leave it like that, or do you wish to man up and tell us who REALLY misrepresented those dimensions? And you made the statement that you confirmed that I got him booted out of a JFK forum. Would you like to correct that statement Michael? If not, then why do you refuse to give us the name of the forum? And finally, why don't you explain why you think that anyone shooting at a target four times larger than Kennedy's head, was duplicating Oswald's scenario? Robert Harris I always reserve the right to further euthanize more stupidity.

I agree I think we can replicate it well. I look forward to working with you John.

John, Quite right. Beating a dead horse just wastes my time. I showed what needed to be shown, and so the folly of this one has to go in the can and waste no more time on it. Mike

John, You dont need any proof for me brother. I take your word and opinion at face value, and have no reason to doubt you. So, I have a proposal. Why dont WE work on a recreation? I have the window dimensions, and perhaps you can do work calculations on how far it was to the corner and the position of the pipes. Once there we can move in some boxes and see what we have. Once drawn and situated properly I will build the opening and wall out of PVC pipe and we can test things from there. What say ye?

Dean, I wish that could be the case. It can not. This is how Robert reacts to anyone who does not agree with him. Its a common tactic of Roberts. No worries though. I have already well proven my points, and they have yet to be refuted. On another note. I saw your post at Duncans place, and absolutely want your help! The new site will not be limited to just the LN thinking, it is for both sides. All I ask is that it be ballistically sound, if it is an article in that direction, if it is not about the shooting or ballistics, that it be accurate and provable. I want a site, for all of us, that keeps our integrity high, and the standards to match. Please feel free to contact me for now at jfk22nov63@aol.com I look forward to working with you on many an adventure!

Robert, I am absolutely amazed at your lack of comprehension. I have already given you the exact dimensions the Mag told me. What exactly is it you are wanting when you ask me to cite him verbatim? He told me the target was a 10" circle on a 3 foot tall stand. What is so difficult for you to understand in that? Your only attacking my credibility here out of frustration. Its all hot air and that's pretty apparent. I also never forwarded an email to you, nice try. I resent the implications about my credibility. Further he absolutely duplicated the timing needed to shoot at 285 and 312, which was not needed as there is no shot at 285. Thats very obvious. Michael, he did not "duplicate" anything, firing at a target that was over four times larger than Kennedy's head. And yes, I am indeed, questioning your credibility. I know for a fact that I never complained about mag30th to any administrator in any forum. So, your claim that you discovered otherwise, is obviously false. And you confirm that by refusing to name the forum. And I don't believe that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, not because he isn't capable of such a thing but because the dimensions were plainly displayed in his video, so there was no need for you to even ask him and there is no way he would have told a lie that was so easily busted. Only one person I know, is that stupid. Robert, He fired at and hit a 10" target mounted on a 3 foot stand. Those are his words exactly. Unless you have something to prove him otherwise, I have to believe him. I still do not comprehend where you believe anyone lied about that target, except of course the countless times you have accused anyone who does not agree with you of lying. That is shameful on your part. I suggest if you have any evidence that he was not being honest, that you bring it forward. I wrote and ask for clarification, and got is. Just like I consulted a physics forum, and just as I consulted an engineer. I would also tell you, since you obviously struggle with math, the back of JFK's profile would be wider than 10" and bordering on 18-24" in height while in the limo, looking at it from an elevated position. So to say that the target (as you claim it) is 4 times larger is misleading. It is also a far cry from your earlier statement that someone firing that fast could not hit the planet lol. Why is it that once you are put into a spot in a debate that you then become nasty and commence with the name calling and accusations? Its a typical tactic to avoid the issues you so desperately wish would go away.

Of course. But do you HAVE that line of sight while standing at that window? I guess you could build a recreation and prove the point?

LOL Try standing and shooting through a hole 14" off the ground and only open 20". You can no where near replicate the angles. As a side note what is the point the shooter in that window was in the window and not back from it. I really dont see the point here.

Robert, I am absolutely amazed at your lack of comprehension. I have already given you the exact dimensions the Mag told me. What exactly is it you are wanting when you ask me to cite him verbatim? He told me the target was a 10" circle on a 3 foot tall stand. What is so difficult for you to understand in that? Your only attacking my credibility here out of frustration. Its all hot air and that's pretty apparent. I also never forwarded an email to you, nice try. I resent the implications about my credibility. Further he absolutely duplicated the timing needed to shoot at 285 and 312, which was not needed as there is no shot at 285. Thats very obvious.

John, I dont think so. Moving back would seriously limit his ability to shoot at the downward angle needed. Remember this window is only 14" from the floor and open only about 20". If you look at the picture of Shannyfelt in the recreation, with his camera on the rifle, his foot is against the back wall. I just can not conceive how someone could have made these shots with the window open as it was having moved back from the window. Mike Why? If there was a line of sight when sitting then all one would have to do is move back along that line? I doubt he was sitting, however there just was little room to move back, and further he would have to move back and up to maintain this line of sight.

John, I dont think so. Moving back would seriously limit his ability to shoot at the downward angle needed. Remember this window is only 14" from the floor and open only about 20". If you look at the picture of Shannyfelt in the recreation, with his camera on the rifle, his foot is against the back wall. I just can not conceive how someone could have made these shots with the window open as it was having moved back from the window. Mike

Whats pathetic is someone trying to spam in order to bury other posts in the thread. These issues have been addressed. I am not reposting what has already been said. If you were not sharp enough to understand it the first time, you probably never will. Michael, you need to realize that anyone and everyone can simply read your previous messages to confirm that you evaded that entire post. And what do you suppose people will think, when you pretend that you already replied? Frankly I think they will scratch their heads wondering why you can not manage to understand that I have replied. However I seriously doubt that they will have any doubts as to why you are trying to distract the thread with foolishness.

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Cite him verbatim Michael. It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you. And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source. Robert, This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said. I have misrepresented nothing. Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past? And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL. Would you like me to prove that? Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email? But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target. Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael. And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael? Robert, No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things? And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert? For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically. I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you. Talk about misrepresenting something! What forum did I get him banned from, Michael? Robert, I have spent a significant time showing you things you were not astute enough to gather on your own. I am not going to address something you already know the answer to. Obviously you have a history with this man, and its not a good one now is it? What forum did I get him banned from Michael? You said you confirmed that yourself. But the truth is, that I never complained to the admins of ANY JFK forum, about mag30th. Knowing what I know about him, I am not surprised that he was banned from various forums - but not because I made such a request. And therefore, you never made any such discovery, did you Michael?? Of course I did Robert. However I would think this is a matter between you and him. Now would you care to get back to the issues or are you just bent on distracting away from the obvious errors in your theory?

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Cite him verbatim Michael. It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you. And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source. Robert, This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said. I have misrepresented nothing. Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past? And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL. Would you like me to prove that? Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email? But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target. Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael. And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael? Robert, No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things? And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert? For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically. I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you. Talk about misrepresenting something! What forum did I get him banned from, Michael? Robert, I have spent a significant time showing you things you were not astute enough to gather on your own. I am not going to address something you already know the answer to. Obviously you have a history with this man, and its not a good one now is it?

Whats pathetic is someone trying to spam in order to bury other posts in the thread. These issues have been addressed. I am not reposting what has already been said. If you were not sharp enough to understand it the first time, you probably never will.

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Cite him verbatim Michael. It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you. And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source. Robert, This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said. I have misrepresented nothing. Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past? And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL. Would you like me to prove that? Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email? But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target. Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael. And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael? Robert, No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things? And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert? For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically. I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you. Talk about misrepresenting something!

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Michael, I'm sorry that you have to resort to personal insults, just because you got caught with your pants down. And yes, as I already told you "mag30th" is certainly not unknown to me. He and cdddraftsman are partners and went after me, a year or so ago. After he posted physical threats to me at Youtube, I reported him to appropriate law enforcement. I think you've found your soulmates, Michael. It is very apparent someone got caught with their pants down. I suggest you pull em back up, and try delivering some less than hysterical research. I have to ask. If he is known to you, then why in the other thread do you refer to him as an unknown ? This is an interesting misrepresentation. Oh he threatened you did he? hahahah It was probably just another one of your moronic conspiracy theories. Im sure some guy from Youtube is going to waste his time on you. Thats just hilarious.