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

How can you contradict the evidence that LHO was sending Marina back to USSR and, oh, by the way, left his wedding ring on the bureau on 11.22.63?

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

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

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

I agree. The answer should include whatever the error margin is though, which I don't think will be great enough to cause doubt.

While gathering the necessary photos it seems to me that one of the first things is to get some exact 1963 measurements. Duncan posted a sketch a few weeks ago but there were some contradictions there from memory. The brick/mortar dimensions can serve as a basis, so, imo, getting measurements of that seems to me necessary.

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

"I always reserve the right to further euthanize more stupidity."

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by that, Michael? I certainly hope you aren't considering suicide.

By "stupidity", did you mean misrepresenting your own source and then trying to blame him for it??

Or were you referring to someone so stupid that he would misrepresent what was in the same email that he forwarded to his adversary??

And in your final fallback position, you ignore documented, corroborated tests by the FBI and the HSCA and base your entire case on some anonymous Youtuber who claims he hit a target four times larger than the one Oswald was allegedly shooting at. How in holy hell could you ever think that was an equivalent situation??

Answer the questions Michael.

And stop running.

I've been wrong before too, Michael. The BIG difference is, that I admit it.

What we both agree on, is that something happened at frame 285 that startled those people. And they all told us exactly what it was.

It is idiotic to think that Oswald got off two shots in 1.5 seconds, especially since the second one was the best shot of the day. If you are really a shooter Michael, then you know as well as I do, that whoever fired that shot, took a deep breath and sighted in his target perfectly, at a distance almost the length of a football field or perhaps even greater.

That shot was not rushed Michael and with the limo traveling 8 mph at the time, there was no need to rush it.

There was ONE professional criminal apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day. And he was found on the third floor of the Daltex building. Braden was also at the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby the night before and he had connections to David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, who confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the murder.

If Braden didn't fire that particular shot then it may have been fired by someone in the depository - either Oswald himself or another shooter whose presence was confirmed by a number of witnesses.

The only thing we can really be certain of is, that somebody fired those shots. One of them might have been from Oswald, but not both.

:ice

Mike, you're being quite tenacious here. I dropped this one after 2/3 through the first followed by a couple of polite but unsatisfactory questions/answers. I don't quite understand why you persist.

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

OK, me too, Mike. I think we need someone in Dallas to measure and give us the average TSBD inner wall brick/mortar dimensions, and to locate all images that show the brickwork and pipes for easy counting and lining things up, for example a straight on view of the nest is rare. I know of one but do not have it, but it exists, A shot of the roof I've never seen.

edit add : also good night for now. re the brickwork, this is what used to be the top floor and the team laying may not have been the same as on the lower floors, Also there are some features that indicate it may have been one of the last portions built, to wit the use of some irregular bricks and uneven mortar, but the basics are there if we can know the average brick size (they also came in slightly vairable batches as well in those days), but we can also just factor in an acceptable error margin.

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.

Mike, you're being quite tenacious here. I dropped this one after 2/3 through the first followed by a couple of polite but unsatisfactory questions/answers. I don't quite understand why you persist.

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 say YES. (at fn last(3+years).Thank you.))

OK we can count bricks. We can know brick/mortar dimensions. We have photographs.

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

Mike, you're being quite tenacious here. I dropped this one after 2/3 through the first followed by a couple of polite but unsatisfactory questions/answers. I don't quite understand why you persist.

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

I think the photo of Shaneyfelt and his bodytwist and feet locations while assuming the position with gun mounted on camera thingy (sans boxes) and an extrapolation of that line of sight would suffice. It does imo. (I have the image that shows it on a non functioning laptop so I'm confident in saying so without posting any ''proof'').

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?

Come on guys

I like both of you

Its ok and in fact healthy to disagree with theories that you think are bogus

Why dont you guys start all over fresh and battle each other in a civil manner before someone goes to far

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!

"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?"

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

And for the fourth time, please cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions of his target??

There were no such dimensions in the email you forwarded to me.

And if he was indeed, the one who lied about the dimensions of his target, then why did you say "no-one" lied?? Obviously, the dimensions he described in his video were much larger than you claim that he told you. If he misrepresented his own video, then his credibility on any of this goes down the commode.

Please give us a straight answer, Michael.

And finally, since we now know that the target he claims to have hit, was more than four times larger than JFK's head, are you at least willing to admit that he did not duplicate Oswald firing the shots at 285 and 312??

And of course, neither has any other human on this planet, right Michael??

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?

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

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.

A line of sight is a line of sight, isn't it?

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?

There were a few feet. And yes, he would have to move up: ie standing and that would solve any pipe problems ( I see them, Allan Eaglesham solves it by moving the pipes, various posers for photos solve it by nestling around them but are photographed so that the contotrions they go through to achieve this are not readily seen.)

edit:typo

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.

"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?"

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

And for the fourth time, please cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions of his target??

There were no such dimensions in the email you forwarded to me.

And if he was indeed, the one who lied about the dimensions of his target, then why did you say "no-one" lied?? Obviously, the dimensions he described in his video were much larger than you claim that he told you. If he misrepresented his own video, then his credibility on any of this goes down the commode.

Please give us a straight answer, Michael.

And finally, since we now know that the target he claims to have hit, was more than four times larger than JFK's head, are you at least willing to admit that he did not duplicate Oswald firing the shots at 285 and 312??

And of course, neither has any other human on this planet, right Michael??

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?

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

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.

Mike, in this or another topic you state in reply to BK that you don't think there was enough room to stand back and take the shots. I've also been trying to recreate the space, and as I see it there is enough room, plenty in fact, only requiring a shift of stance. ie there was no necessity to be exposed at all. ((perhaps if one considers sound dispersal?). but this is not the official position which, to me, seems rather stupid of the sniper)

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.

Mike, in this or another topic you state in reply to BK that you don't think there was enough room to stand back and take the shots. I've also been trying to recreate the space, and as I see it there is enough room, plenty in fact, only requiring a shift of stance. ie there was no necessity to be exposed at all. ((perhaps if one considers sound dispersal?). but this is not the official position which, to me, seems rather stupid of the sniper)

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

"Robert,

Please see the post I made in reply to this one already.

You can deny all you want, you can ask that I repeat the beating all you want, it does not change the fact that these little theories of yours hold no water."

Michael, this was your entire, zero content response to my arguments,

"You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things."

Now, address the issues, or admit that you can't. If you really hope to "refute" me, you are going to have to stop running from the issues.

Here it is again,

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such

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 am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

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 am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

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?

"Robert,

Please see the post I made in reply to this one already.

You can deny all you want, you can ask that I repeat the beating all you want, it does not change the fact that these little theories of yours hold no water."

Michael, this was your entire, zero content response to my arguments,

"You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things."

Now, address the issues, or admit that you can't. If you really hope to "refute" me, you are going to have to stop running from the issues.

Here it is again,

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such

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 am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

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 am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

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.