Mike Williams

"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?

Michael said, "Remember this as you watch and see how often Robert "corrects" these witnesses that he says were "not confused".

as if that were some kind of rebuttal, but then he turned around and fully agreed,

"OF course some of them were confused, I think it is completely understandable given the circumstances."

But notice that he is not interested in specifics. There's a reason for that.

The "confusion" lies in the fact that Mrs. Kennedy did not realize that her husband was hit at 223, and thought that he was wounded by the shot that she heard later, AFTER she looked back and saw JFK in distress, and AFTER she heard her husband shouting, "Oh, no, no, no". And throughout her entire life, she was adamant that she never looked to the rear again after she heard that "second" shots.

But Mrs. Connally turned to the rear TWICE after frame 223, the last time being at about frame 282.

And in fact, in the other forum, Michael has admitted that Mrs. Connally and the other limo passengers were startled by a loud noise at frame 285 and began to react at 290-292.

Nellie's reaction began at precisely, frame 291, and then pulled her husband back to her, exactly as she testified.

It is ridiculously obvious, that she was reacting to the gunshot then, that she thought, hit her husband.

Nellie is quite specific.

First Hit JFK

Second Hit JBC

Third was the headshot.

There was no shot between John and the head shot

thus there was no shot at 285.

Its quite simple.

Robert,

I have already gone over all of this with you. 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 are you going to refute anything I have said with facts, or are you just going to keep whining that I am wrong?

I do have one question.

If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?

Look how hard you tried to plead your case in your last post. Using the words bullets and silencers. What was this non-rifle non-pistol weapon that uses bullets and silencers?

Robert your really coming off rather poorly.

So now do you care to address the issues, or are you going to go on another whining binge?

You stated,

"If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?"

was a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said. I said that we do not know what kind of a weapon it was. Why can't you deal with any of this honestly, Michael.

And you totally evaded every fact and argument I made. Let's give you another shot at addressing what I REALLY DID SAY:

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 a claim.

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.

"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 video"

Gotta love the xxxxx chat. Zero content and Zero specificity.

Michael, why don't you tell us specifically, how I am wrong about all these things?

Robert,

This seems to be a reoccurring tactic of yours. My posts have well proven the point. However you ask me now to restate what has already been stated.

Why do you ask for a second helping of humiliation?

"Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not?"

Michael, you asked about this long ago - on April 7th in fact, in the other forum, and I replied

"The first three shots might very well have all come from the same weapon. Of course, that could not have been the same as the weapons which fired the much louder shots at 285 and 312."

I also pointed out to to you, that if the 285 shot came from the Daltex, the shooter would have to have used a different weapon for that shot, or there was a another sniper with him, using a high powered rifle.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about that and you didn't even try to challenge me on it. Why do you now pretend that this is some kind of revelation you just came up with?

I also pointed out, and also explained in my video presentation, the 285 shot might very well have been fired from the Depository.

Michael, you are fabricating issues that have already been resolved and to which you had no counter argument. What is the point of this, other than harassment??

I brought this up so the readers of THIS forum would be aware of the ridiculousness of what your "theory" contains. Its not harassment Robert, not at all. Why do you have an issue with me bringing it up? Is there some part of our exchange you do not want the readers here to have read? I bet there is. I bet you wish they had not read any of it. Challenge you on it, hell all I could do was laugh about it.

I wonder if all these shooters with all these weapons marched in platoon formation into the Dal Tex. :ice

As far as issues resolved, you have not resolved one of the errors in your videos to date. All you did was come to another forum garnering support for these same ideas. Judging by the amount of responses you are getting I think your "theory" has epically failed here as well. These readers are not stupid. They see the exact position you are in.

It must be difficult.

Keep changing the theory Robert, its your only hope of getting it right. In fact, scratch that. Just go back to the drawing board.

Michael, why exactly do you call it "ridiculousness" that there might have been two snipers in the Daltex, or a sniper with two weapons?

Can you be specific for a change?

Well first off what kind of weapons would they be that fire bullets uses suppressors and have to be assembled? :ice

I know that it appears common sense is not your strong suit, but let me see if I can help you out here.

Not one single person has ever said they heard shots inside the Dal-Tex.

Not one single weapon was found inside the Dal-Tex

The "broken window" you allege for your shooter (of this mystery weapon) is completely intact.

I have been very specific in every post here, so this should come as no change to you.

Michael said, "That is some funny stuff. How could Alvarez have "discovered" a shot, and then "speculate it was a siren"

Watch the video and read his paper, Michael. Alvarez was a staunch WC defender and by his own admission, set as a "boundary condition" the presumption that Oswald fired all the shots. Therefore, as he also stated, Oswald could not have fired both a shot at 285 and at 312.

He also said the reactions following 312 were stronger than the ones following 285, which made perfect sense if they had both been fired by Oswald, but obviously, they had not.

And that is just one more reason why we can be absolutely certain that Oswald did not fired both of those shots - in addition to the minor detail that such a thing was impossible.

Again for the reading comprehension impaired.

Alvarez, who you cite as the person who "discovered" the shot, does not even believe it was a shot. Why is that? Simple really, there was no shot at 285. I would think a man like Alvarez would certainly have determined if there were. He also based his conclusion on the fact that of all the jiggle episodes this was the smallest and least impressive. This same determination was also made by Scott and Hartman in their analysis.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a shot at 285.

"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?

I like the blonde babe sniper in the Mark White article on sound suppressers in Gunwriters.

And if you guys have exausted that round, I have a question about the shooting that I'd like Mike to address.

If the Sixth Floor Sniper didn't need the boxes to lean on, could he have taken the same shot from one or two feet back further into the window?

If so, then nobody would have seen him from the street at all, right?

And if that is so, then can it be concluded that he intended to be seen?

Thanks,

BK

Bill,

I really do not think that he had much room to back away from that particular window. This leads me to ask this question. Why in the heck did he not shoot from the west end of the building? He then could have been back away a bit as there would have been no wall to hamper this.

My thinking is this, he chose that window so that as he opened fire the SS car would have its view blocked by the tree. Or perhaps he did not have a high degree of confidence in his shooting ability, and thought he could get more rounds off from the east window, as the target would be in more of a traveling away position.

That window as near as I can determine from Shannyfelt's(?) drawings was only open 20" thats a pretty short opening to shoot from and would be difficult to make a descending shot from anywhere but right in the window. I am sure that the fact that the sill of the window was only 14" above the floor would not help either.

I have often though about making a recreation of that nest, in a real physical model, and doing some shooting experiments through it. For some reason I never get it done, and then when a question like this comes up I wish I would have lol.

Mike

Robert,

I have already gone over all of this with you. 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 are you going to refute anything I have said with facts, or are you just going to keep whining that I am wrong?

I do have one question.

If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?

Look how hard you tried to plead your case in your last post. Using the words bullets and silencers. What was this non-rifle non-pistol weapon that uses bullets and silencers?

Robert your really coming off rather poorly.

So now do you care to address the issues, or are you going to go on another whining binge?

Looks as thought Robert has abandon the thread.

Wise choice on his part.

"Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not?"

Michael, you asked about this long ago - on April 7th in fact, in the other forum, and I replied

"The first three shots might very well have all come from the same weapon. Of course, that could not have been the same as the weapons which fired the much louder shots at 285 and 312."

I also pointed out to to you, that if the 285 shot came from the Daltex, the shooter would have to have used a different weapon for that shot, or there was a another sniper with him, using a high powered rifle.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about that and you didn't even try to challenge me on it. Why do you now pretend that this is some kind of revelation you just came up with?

I also pointed out, and also explained in my video presentation, the 285 shot might very well have been fired from the Depository.

Michael, you are fabricating issues that have already been resolved and to which you had no counter argument. What is the point of this, other than harassment??

I brought this up so the readers of THIS forum would be aware of the ridiculousness of what your "theory" contains. Its not harassment Robert, not at all. Why do you have an issue with me bringing it up? Is there some part of our exchange you do not want the readers here to have read? I bet there is. I bet you wish they had not read any of it. Challenge you on it, hell all I could do was laugh about it.

I wonder if all these shooters with all these weapons marched in platoon formation into the Dal Tex. :lol:

As far as issues resolved, you have not resolved one of the errors in your videos to date. All you did was come to another forum garnering support for these same ideas. Judging by the amount of responses you are getting I think your "theory" has epically failed here as well. These readers are not stupid. They see the exact position you are in.

It must be difficult.

Keep changing the theory Robert, its your only hope of getting it right. In fact, scratch that. Just go back to the drawing board.

Michael, you stated,

"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."

I realize Michael, that you want to convince readers that the target was close to the size of a human head. But at 0:39 in the video, the onscreen statement is:

"three accurate shots in 2.3 seconds on a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

The target was NOT 10 inches by 10 inches. It was 10 inches by 3 feet.

Why did you misrepresent your own source, Michael?

Were you hoping no-one would notice?

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

I just have two questions Michael.

First, would you cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions?

And second, if he gave you dimensions that contradicted his own video, doesn't that make you wonder just a bit, about how reliable he is?

Oh, and one last thing. What's the guy's actual name?

I already did cite him verbatim, were you not paying attention?

Anyone who shoots uses some type of a target stand. I simply asked him to clarify the target.

He is not contradicting anything.

He can be contacted via youtube. I will not give his real name in a forum without his consent, that would be completely out of line.

Michael, after I told you that, I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either - you replied.

"Then why do you use the term rifle so many times in your video?"

Because the shots at 285 and 312, which provoked visible startle reactions, obviously came from high powered rifles.

So your DalTex shooter was in the early stages, the Towner /160 shot/223 shot, firing something that uses bullets (your words) suppressor(your words) with a rifle that he assembled at the scene (your words). In your video you repeat multiple times "Now folks if you were a sniper and you just fired a shot that missed....what would you do? You would fire again right? And that is just what he did."

So Since you are saying he fired again we can then assume it is the same shooter.

I laugh each time I now read "I never stated those shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated those shots came from a pistol."

If you were not saying that then why did you use the word rifle, why did you explain to us that the person would have to assemble the rifle at the scene? I mean really now Robert, what else fires bullets uses a suppressor and has to be assembled at the scene. This is greatly funny.

Now onto 285 which gets even funnier.

Now you have shots coming from the DalTex, WITH a high power rifle.

Um...how many people were smuggling rifles into the DalTex that day? Must have looked like the staging area for the D Day Landings at Normady. LOL

Either that or your shooter was hauling up this mystery weapon and a high powered rifle.

Now why dont you just fess up and tell us that you were in fact talking about a high power rifle. It is blatantly obvious.

I have to laugh a bit when I think of a guy firing something that uses bullets a suppressor and "has to be assembled because no one could smuggle in a assembled rifle (your words). And then abandoning thei weapon FOR a high powered rifle to make his final shots.

This is becoming ridiculous.

But I must confess, I do enjoy watching you dance something akin to the hokey pokey trying to explain your way out of an inescapable position.

psssssssst there was no shot at 285, so you dont have to try to explain that one.

Michael, you stated,

"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."

I realize Michael, that you want to convince readers that the target was close to the size of a human head. But at 0:39 in the video, the onscreen statement is:

"three accurate shots in 2.3 seconds on a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

The target was NOT 10 inches by 10 inches. It was 10 inches by 3 feet.

Why did you misrepresent your own source, Michael?

Were you hoping no-one would notice?

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

Robert,

I have already gone over all of this with you. 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 are you going to refute anything I have said with facts, or are you just going to keep whining that I am wrong?

I do have one question.

If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?

Look how hard you tried to plead your case in your last post. Using the words bullets and silencers. What was this non-rifle non-pistol weapon that uses bullets and silencers?

Robert your really coming off rather poorly.

So now do you care to address the issues, or are you going to go on another whining binge?

Antti,

The only problem is they do not go together like Peas and Carrots as Gump would say.

If there was a wound to the neck, his hands would certainly have grabbed that neck. Especially a perforating/penetrating wound. This would certainly happen without fail.

I think this is very close to being proof positive that there is no anterior neck injury at that time.

As to how he should react to a hard blow to the back, and having the wind knocked from him, I would suspect he would be a bit dazed, and after a short time trying to get his breath.

I have had the wind knocked from me several times, and have the ballistic vest to prove it lol, When this happened there was no initial panic, but there was panic a few seconds later as I could not regain my breath. At first I was just stunned.

I do not know what effects the back brace would have. Nor do I have any idea of what his thoughts were regarding keeping his composure.

What I do know is that with almost absolute certainty, anyone that I have ever treated with a neck wound had to almost have their hands broke to get them off their neck. His hands never go there and I suggest this is a strong indication he is not injured in the anterior neck at this time.

Mike

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

I follow you !

Ok here is what I think happened and the accountability of all 3 shots.

Shot 1:

Short round hits JFK in the back to a depth of 2".

Shot 2:

JBC and his wounds.

Shot 3:

Hits the head, which diminishes its velocity, and strikes the chrome.

The sends fragments from the shattered bullet to strike the inside of the glass and crack it, as well as sending fragments to the Main St. curb, and Tague.

I know some will have issue with this but I have worked up some estimated velocities.

The crack had lead on the inside, not copper. This could be an indication that it was a fragment of the lead core that had separated from the copper jacket, after it hit the chrome.

Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.

So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.

I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.

These are very preliminary numbers but I believe them to be in the ballpark. I also note that the scratch on the curb is lead, not copper, again telling us that what ever struck it was not a direct hit, but from something that had the copper jacket already removed.

Now.

The dog gone SBT.

I have been doing much work with reverse trajectory, and some of those initial numbers indicate that the difference in the impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2* degrees. That would sure seem to indicate one single bullet. But not necessarily. A short round would very likely leave an irregular entry. This could account for that, of course what are the odds that this irregular entry would match so closely to the JBC wound. The SBT needs more work from me to form a conclusive opinion.

For now I still believe 3 shots 3 hits.

I hope this helps a bit to at least clarify my thinking.

Mike

Now that is not bad! Lot's of stuff to digest in that, no matter what.

'Thanks Mike!

Yes Sir I agree its a lot to take in. I have spent many many hours going over this, as you may well know I once believed it was a conspiracy, but the ballistics just do not bear this out.

While I do think there may still have been a conspiracies operating against JFK, I also believe it was the work of a single shooter that assassinated him. Then when it had to be investigated there was much CYA going on. This gives the appearance of a coverup, which there was. But they were only covering up plotting not actions.

See what I mean?

Mike

I see exactly what you mean. Having been a lurker, off and on, for a long time, I can't say that I know enough about the JFK assassination to have definitive opinion. But, one thing is reasonably clear in my mind; many of the CT explanations for what happened are nonsense. And this is probably why I really appreciate your approach here; you are going through the real basics of the case, what happened in that car and at the Plaza that day. And even though I'm not much of a sparring partner to you here, it's very interesting to follow your reasonings. And of course I understand that you are sort of thinking out loud, not many people have the courage to do that. Impressive!

After the JVB thread it's nice with some sanity...

Glenn

Thanks Glenn!

Yep I sure do think out loud and at times it gets me in BIG trouble at home lol.

I do like to keep what I am thinking out in the open. What that does is gives others the opportunity to correct me before I become to married to an idea. It keeps my feet on the ground so to speak.

I am glad you enjoy reading my thoughts in the forum, I think you and I might just be the only two that can make sense of the mess that is my thoughts lol

Hope you have a great day!

Mike

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

I follow you !

Ok here is what I think happened and the accountability of all 3 shots.

Shot 1:

Short round hits JFK in the back to a depth of 2".

Shot 2:

JBC and his wounds.

Shot 3:

Hits the head, which diminishes its velocity, and strikes the chrome.

The sends fragments from the shattered bullet to strike the inside of the glass and crack it, as well as sending fragments to the Main St. curb, and Tague.

I know some will have issue with this but I have worked up some estimated velocities.

The crack had lead on the inside, not copper. This could be an indication that it was a fragment of the lead core that had separated from the copper jacket, after it hit the chrome.

Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.

So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.

I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.

These are very preliminary numbers but I believe them to be in the ballpark. I also note that the scratch on the curb is lead, not copper, again telling us that what ever struck it was not a direct hit, but from something that had the copper jacket already removed.

Now.

The dog gone SBT.

I have been doing much work with reverse trajectory, and some of those initial numbers indicate that the difference in the impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2* degrees. That would sure seem to indicate one single bullet. But not necessarily. A short round would very likely leave an irregular entry. This could account for that, of course what are the odds that this irregular entry would match so closely to the JBC wound. The SBT needs more work from me to form a conclusive opinion.

For now I still believe 3 shots 3 hits.

I hope this helps a bit to at least clarify my thinking.

Mike

Now that is not bad! Lot's of stuff to digest in that, no matter what.

'Thanks Mike!

Yes Sir I agree its a lot to take in. I have spent many many hours going over this, as you may well know I once believed it was a conspiracy, but the ballistics just do not bear this out.

While I do think there may still have been a conspiracies operating against JFK, I also believe it was the work of a single shooter that assassinated him. Then when it had to be investigated there was much CYA going on. This gives the appearance of a coverup, which there was. But they were only covering up plotting not actions.

See what I mean?

Mike

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

I follow you !

Ok here is what I think happened and the accountability of all 3 shots.

Shot 1:

Short round hits JFK in the back to a depth of 2".

Shot 2:

JBC and his wounds.

Shot 3:

Hits the head, which diminishes its velocity, and strikes the chrome.

The sends fragments from the shattered bullet to strike the inside of the glass and crack it, as well as sending fragments to the Main St. curb, and Tague.

I know some will have issue with this but I have worked up some estimated velocities.

The crack had lead on the inside, not copper. This could be an indication that it was a fragment of the lead core that had separated from the copper jacket, after it hit the chrome.

Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.

So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.

I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.

These are very preliminary numbers but I believe them to be in the ballpark. I also note that the scratch on the curb is lead, not copper, again telling us that what ever struck it was not a direct hit, but from something that had the copper jacket already removed.

Now.

The dog gone SBT.

I have been doing much work with reverse trajectory, and some of those initial numbers indicate that the difference in the impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2* degrees. That would sure seem to indicate one single bullet. But not necessarily. A short round would very likely leave an irregular entry. This could account for that, of course what are the odds that this irregular entry would match so closely to the JBC wound. The SBT needs more work from me to form a conclusive opinion.

For now I still believe 3 shots 3 hits.

I hope this helps a bit to at least clarify my thinking.

Mike

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Robert,

Just in case you missed it, do you care to address any of the other issues I raised which show the obvious errors in your videos?

Michael, you are a xxxxx because almost everything you claimed, <removed by moderator>.

I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either.

The shots at 285 and 312 did indeed, come from a high powered rifle because they were loud enough to startle the people in the limo.

You need to stop and think, that most of the people <removed by moderator> have seen the video and know exactly what I said and what I didn't say.

Fortunately for me, you're not just a <removed by moderator> xxxxx, you're also not very good at it.

Michael, you are a xxxxx because almost everything you claimed, <removed by moderator>.

Robert,

I take exception to this. <removed by moderator>

I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either.

Then why do you use the term rifle so many times in your video? You have yet to answer that. Why do you use the other term as I have posted previously? You have yet to answer that.

The shots at 285 and 312 did indeed, come from a high powered rifle because they were loud enough to startle the people in the limo.

Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not? How many weapons did they imaginary man have up there with him?

Anyone who watches these videos can plainly see that. They can also see that I am not lying whatsoever.

Part 1:

Part2:

The 285 Shot:

You need to stop and think, that most of the people <removed by moderator> have seen the video and know exactly what I said and what I didn't say.

I have attached the links to all 3 of the videos i have discussed above, and invite anyone to watch them <removed by moderator>. What you fail to realize Robert, is that had I <been wrong> members of this board would have been quick to point it out to me. Not one person has made a comment other than Pat. <removed by moderator> he simply accused me of being wrong. I was not wrong however, for just the reasons mentioned.

Fortunately for me, you're not just a <removed by moderator> xxxxx, you're also not very good at it.

You have yet to prove either one. So if you care to be specific I would love to see that. If not, as is the case, then you need to apologize for your rude behavior.

I invite anyone on this board to show me where I have <removed by moderator> about anything I have written in regard to Roberts videos I have listed above.

This is Roberts typical conduct. If you dont agree with him you are a <removed by moderator> fanatic, etc etc.

But then he NEVER backs it up with exact proof <removed by moderator>.

Mike

Michael,

Allow me to add an alternative explanation to JFK's apparent reaction when the car is close to the Dal-Tex building. I have posted in the past the results of Tom Wilson's photo analysis using Photonics. In short, Wilson sees a person in the second floor open window of Dal-Tex looking into the eyepiece of a box like "device". As I have found in a US Patent search, there is a device (with that identical design) that fires an "ice bullet" that could have been of a compound that would causes paralysis in seconds. The devise can use a powder charge to fire the bullet but it would be of subsonic velocity. Is it possible that the reaction we see is that slug entering JFK's back? It makes sense that it would used close in to the Dal-Tex and would ensure that JFK would stay upright for the shooting teams. Also, Wilson finds three back wounds in JFK, one of exit and two of entrance. Your thoughts?

Steve, the problem I have with any theories that posit an attempt to immobilize JFK, is that if someone is in a position to do that, why not just go ahead and shoot him, instead? And JFK did move around, and briefly wave to the crowd after that point, so he doesn't really seem to be totally immobile.

My theory explains two important things. First, it explains why most of the early shots went totally unheard and why the one that was heard, never startled anyone and didn't sound like a real gunshot to most witnesses. What many students of the case fail to realize is, that the vast majority of witnesses recalled only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Unless there really was just one early shot, then it's pretty obvious that some of them were not heard at all by those witnesses.

And second, the fact that suppressors are notorious for causing wild inaccuracies, explains why at least one and probably two early shots missed the entire limousine. It also explains why the shot that hit JFK in the back, hit far below the head, which would have been the preferred target, and why the bullet was tumblling, and creating an entry wound which was almost twice as tall as it was wide.

Robert,

Of course I agree with the logic that using a dart rather than just shooting the man is silly. Just way to much margin for error.

Most of the witnesses say there was one shot, followed by two close together. To be exact. The reason none of the witnesses heard your "early" shots is simple. There were no early shots.

Suppressors, as I have already told you, are not notorious for causing wild inaccuracies, not at all. The issue is improper manufacture or improper installation. For a person who knows what they are doing they work perfectly. Now can you imagine some guy going after the President of the United States, planning it to the point if using suppressors etc, and then not test his equipment? How silly is that? Someone swift enough to sneak a disassembled rifle into a building and then not know how to assemble and use it properly? That sounds a bit kooky to me.

Not to mention the fact that if the bullet were tumbling or off at the muzzle that it would have any chance of hitting the target is crazy. In your "theory" the shooter has made a hit probably at 223, and then misses the limo by over 20 feet high at 285? Come on that is a stretch for anyone to believe.

As you have also been told, the bullet to strike JFK was certainly not tumbling. The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position. Of course the shooter had to have been elevated much higher than your DalTEx shooter, but in fact he was higher. He was in the 6th floor of the TSBD.

What I do not understand is we have been over all this, you have been shown the errors in your research, and yet, you still seem to be trying to recruit others into your ideas. Why in the world would you continue to spread information that you KNOW is incorrect?

The case deserves the truth Robert. So do the forum members. They do not deserve to be told things that have already been proven to be shenanigans.

Are you ever going to get around to addressing the numerous other errors that I have shown you early on in this thread?

Mike

So let me see if I have this now...

1. An unidentified nurse found a bullet that had fallen from Connally's leg and gave it to Nolan, who gave it to Fritz, who gave it to the FBI.

2. Nurse Bell was given fragments from Connally's wrist and gave them to an FBI or SS agent.

3. When the FBI realized this bullet could not have been fired from Oswald's gun, they made it disappear, by claiming Nolan had only been given fragments, and that he'd received these from Bell.

I have problems with this.

By switching envelopes, they'd taken a huge risk that 1) Bell would have a clear recollection of the man to whom she gave the fragments and swear on a stack of Bibles it wasn't Nolan; 2) Nolan would open or feel the envelope and feel sure he'd received an intact bullet; 3) Nolan would swear on a stack of Bibles the nurse who gave them this bullet wasn't Bell; and 4) the nurse who actually found the bullet would talk.

Question: wouldn't they have been better off simply switching this bullet for one fired from Oswald's gun, as they apparently did with the stretcher bullet?

Pat,

I agree with your issues. This all does seem to be the long way around the barn.

My question is why would they switch an "Oswald bullet" for the "pointed" stretcher bullet at all. Why not just confirm the stretcher bullet had nothing to do with the case at all? This would have brought their risk to zero, as planting a bullet from Oswalds rifle only seems to have caused them grief for years.

Evidence that does not exist can not be examined, this leaves 0 possibility of refuting it.

I would also add that Tomlinson was definitely not "always adamant" about where he found the bullet. It is apparent from his WC testimony that he is unsure. He makes this very clear in his WC testimony.

This to me leaves the door open that it could well have been the JBC stretcher that it was found on.

I do not dispute the fact that there are issues with the chain of possession.

Another issue I have is the proportion with which the claims that the bullet(CE399) could not be identified as the one found on the stretcher.

From what I have read this neither confirms nor denies.

Evidently, it is already superior!

If you can't see the dishonesty of your methodology, I can't help you. Come back when you are up-to-speed on the evidence.

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

Knock off the condescension until your familiarity with the New Orleans evidence equals mine.

Great, great. I am in the presence of greatness.

Start by telling me all you know about David Ferrie.

Then tell me the evidence Haslam offers to support the claim that Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment.

Then tell me about the interviews you've done with the New Orleans witnesses.

Stephen,

Shame on you for asking Fetzer for anything resembling accurate evidence. When his greatness speaks you are to follow BLINDLY please try to remember this in the future.

Mike