Mike Williams

Kevin, I have become quite good at decoding Fetzer. What he is really saying to you here is that he can not support the first point let alone the other 16. He claims he is too "spent" and yet I assure you my good man, he will be posting to this thread for eons to come. Laughing, Mike

I would also like to add for those following. This would be possibly the 4th shot from Roberts alleged Dal Tex Shooter. Originally Robert Postulates these are suppressed rifle shots. This has been well proven in this thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0 Of course he has changed his position, as we see in that thread, to one of using something other than a rifle and subsonic ammo, even though he never at any point says that in his video. If this is his new position then one has to wonder why the people would react to a shot at all. If this were a suppressed weapon "something other than a rifle" as Robert Postulates in his new position, and if this shooter is now firing subsonic ammo, as he now have changed his "story" to then they certainly would not have seen the bullet, they certainly would not have felt a "shock wave" and they certainly would not have heard it. SO why then would they be reacting to it? The whole story just makes no ballistic sense what so ever. I guess I am now a xxxxx because I do not agree with him, and shown his theory is a ballistic mess. Well all i can say is that I believe this case is important, and as such deserves correct information to those who study it. Mike

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

Robert, Someone who disagrees with you is not personally attacking you. I continue nothing here except the refutation of your poor research and information. You posted your videos and theories, I am simply addressing the issues with them. I have discussed these issues with you in no other forums than the ones mentioned, Duncan's place and here. I addressed them AFTER you made opening posts proposing your ideas. If you had not wanted input, why post your thoughts? Is this not what a forum is for. Discussion? Or would you rather not be critiqued? I think this was a very important event in history. I am still studying it, and the position I hold is that it was a lone gunman. This has changed as at one time I fully believed in conspiracy. In Roberts original posting he states that the Limo does not slow before frame 299-300. Of course Alvarez study proves him wrong and he completely misread Alvarez graphic depicting this slowdown. Alvarez centers this braking at 299-300. Meaning that the slow down was already in progress at that time. Robert seems to have missed this completely. The effect of 55 lbs of force is neither ludicrous nor disingenuous. It is a mathematical calculation and fact. In the beginning of all this I agreed that there was something, and that it could possibly be a startle reaction. Once I read Alvarez data and calculated the force of the braking on the passengers, I came to the conclusion that there must not be a startle at all. The Jiggle episode is the smallest of the 5 episodes, in Alvarez data. It lasts about 1-2 frames, and, as Alvarez himself stated he doubted it was a gunshot. I find it amazing that Robert would build a case around data that seems to directly contradict him. He cites Alvarez as confirmation of a shot, and yet Alvarez himself tells us he highly doubts it was a shot. I laugh every time I read this. Robert seems to make much of the fact that I actually went to a physics forum in search of the correct calculation. Now I suppose there are some here that could do this from memory, but I myself am more than 25 years out of high school. When I origianlly made the calculation I knew it was not correct. Something was missing from the equation. I went to a physics forum and was very quickly shown the error in my calculation, I had not converted the units properly. I would be more than happy to post a link to that thread for all who desire to see it. The statement that Robert makes about them doing the math for me is complete foolishness. What I do find interesting, is that in the opening post I am called a xxxxx and accused of following Robert. It is a great curiosity for me considering he followed me to the physics forum. Some one is definitely following someone, but it sure is not me. I never said anyone was "thrown" forward. I said it would be noticeable which it surely is. Robert seems to gravitate towards the extreme. I said they would have a noticeable reaction, Robert takes this as me saying they all, to a passenger, should be bouncing off the windshield, which is not the case at all. Here is a link to the physics thread. Anyone can see I had help resolving the units and did the math myself. This also shows a distinct fabrication by Robert. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=394172 I see no issue in consulting a physics forum to resolve an issue. I thought that's what research is all about. I might also add that this forum is excellent as a resource and has nice people and loads of information. I have to laugh a little and ask, if you really thought that it was possible, as you claim, then why would you say that the shots at 285 and 313 prove conspiracy? Of course you did not believe it could be done. Thats what your whole theory is based on. You again accuse me of <removed by moderator> when in fact that is not the case at all. The very last seconds of this video you state that Oswald could have fired one or the other but not both. You claim this is my "recent fall back position" which it certainly is not, what it IS is another nail in the coffin that proves even if a shot existed at 285 it would not prove conspiracy. One nail of man I might add. I am glad to see that you now agree a person can fire that fast. There might just be a bit of what you are being taught soaking in. So now that we agree that a person can fire that fast, we have to address the "could not hit anything smaller than the planet". 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. He fires 3 rounds in 2.3 seconds, and makes 3 hits on the target (10" circle). Robert then says that the man is not hitting the target all 3 times, so i wrote that youtube member to confirm he was in fact hitting with the shots, and the poster confirmed in a message to me, that they in fact had made 3 hits. Being a Carcano owner I have no issue with this. The Carcano has very mild recoil, and reacquiring the target after each shot is very easy and smooth. Nothing in my 24 years of shooting experience(professional) would make me doubt this mans claims of 3 hits. Of course as is Roberts MO this does not fit his theory, so the man must be lying, even though he can watch the video and see clearly he is not. We can write him and receive confirmation as well, which I have done. Which proves that the FBI expert was not very familiar with the Carcano, and nothing more. The weapon is obviously capable. Which proves that with practice one becomes more efficient. Perhaps those multiple indications that the cartridges had been cycled through the weapon multiple times is an indication that someone practiced before the assassination. Imagine that would ya? Sigh so as not to have to repeat myself see answer 1. I guess you must have missed that video I posted. Here is is again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M These shots are fired in less than 2.3 seconds for 3 shots. Even if you discount the first that is 2 shots in 1.15 seconds each average. You can use as much strong language as you like the fact remains that it was possible. We have evidence that someone practiced cycling the carcano, and we have a video that shows us the weapon was capable of the task. There is no disputing this. Now as a side note. I would encourage Robert to register at a sound CAD forum. If he had done so he would have noticed as he " examined this shot for a long time in my (Roberts) CAD program" that the shot he alleges at 285 would not have "narrowly" missed as he claimed. It would have missed by going more than 20 feet over the limo. And that is the projected trajectory shooting from the 2nd floor, not the third, the third would put it almost 30 feet over at least. This is based on his theory that the shot hit Main as we see in the diagram in his video. Best to all , Mike

Actually, I have only two remaining (intact) WCC 6.5mm Carcano rounds, and have no intention of shooting either one. As difficult as it was to part with (shoot) a portion of those found, if one is going to do "comparative testing", then one should not attempt to do so with any of the new NORMA ammo. However, the actual Italian rounds are quite similiar in structure to the WCC round, and can be easily utilized to determine if (which it does) a copper-jacketed Carcano bullet actually loses stability and begins to tumble in flight after having been fired through a 1-inch thick oak limb. Do you ballistics guys know how or why and of any other examples of a bullet fragmenting like the one that hit JFK's head? And has anyone tried to account for all of the fragments? Thanks, BK Bill, I really don't believe that bullet fragmented until after it left the head, and struck the chrome. That wound is a text book FMJ. Antti, If what I have read is correct, the fragments in JBC are consistent with what would come from the base (bottom) of an open cored bullet. From what I understand their weight in totem was 1.5 grains. Now the wounds to the head of JFK I believe come from a separate bullet. I also believe they are very small in nature and consistent with the loss from the base of a projectile. I read an article sometime ago that postulates that many of the fragments we see may actually be artifacts in the Xray and small bits of bone matter. I guess I can not refute nor prove what those are so I have to remain open. Mike

Steve, Since ballistics is what I study the most, I would certainly be willing to look at whatever you have. Why dont you begin a new thread and we can examine the patent and photos. I would especially be interested in the projectiles these fire as well as the assessment of the back wound(s) you propose. Mike

That is some funny stuff. How could Alvarez have "discovered" a shot, and then "speculate it was a siren" Alvarez never said there was a shot at 285, and this theory has been seriously debunked over at Duncan's place. Remember this as you watch and see how often Robert "corrects" these witnesses that he says were "not confused". OF course some of them were confused, I think it is completely understandable given the circumstances. I would also ask you to consider that the limo occupants would be affected by 55 lbs of force as the limo slows from 12mph to 8 mph in .5 seconds. Of course this is never taken into consideration by Robert in his "theory" While 55lbs is not a great and massive force it would surely be a noticeable reaction. Bear in mind as you watch this also that Nellie always says she heard a shot and JFK raised his hands, then she heard a shot and it hit John, and then she heard a shot and the brain matter rained down on them. Never at any time does anyone ever say there was a shot between when JBC was hit and the head shot. The whole premise here is Roberts attempt to prove conspiracy by saying an MC rifle can not fire 2 shots in 1.5 seconds which it certainly can. These shots were fired at 120 yards into a 10" plate. 3 shots 2.3 seconds. Since we have no proof of Oswald practicing, and in the same token we can not rule out that he did. Therefore its a moot point and we must at least look at the rifles ability. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M

B, Your ability to procure relevant documents is a freeking amazement to me. I finally can take no more, and have to ask, how in hades do you do that!?!?!?! You are beyond doubt a huge asset to the research community! I wish I had half the talent of finding this stuff that you do. Mike

Robert, All one has to do is watch your video to know this is not true. You specifically go into great detail about assembling a rifle before hand and all the issues (as you perceive them) with using a silencer. You even specifically quote an article in which the author talks about some of the inherent issues with rifle suppressors. Not one single time is there ever the mention of the word pistol in your video, and also at no time is there the mention of the word subsonic. This is in both parts 1 and 2. So what words did you use? Lets have a look. Sniper 6 times Shot 25+ times GUN shot 10 times Rifle 6+ times You use the phrase "No assassin would would enter the plaza with a fully assembled rifle" And last but not least the article which you reference is titled: Yep you guessed it. "The use of sound suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES" You tell us now that you never said the shots came from a high powered rifle, and yet the very article you reference is "The use of suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES" You tell us now that you never imply they come from any kind of rifle, and yet the word rifle is used many times in your videos. I might add again that the word SUBSONIC is NEVER USED nor is the word PISTOL. To top it all off, you then accuse me of misrepresenting you. I am doing no such thing, I am simply showing you the magnitude of the errors in your research, which are epic. One would think that as a researcher you would find value in that, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting you when all I have done is simply taken the evidence you have offered, and shown you that it is incorrect. I would very much appreciate an apology from you about this. It was very unfair of you to accuse me of misrepresenting you when I did no such thing and it is obvious for everyone to see. Mike Michael, that was a terribly disingenuous posting. White's article was about problems that are inherent with suppressors due to misalignment and other types of problems, which I believe were the cause of the missed shots, and the tumbling of the bullet that hit JFK in the back. You seem to want to make it appear that I claimed that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle, because white mentioned them in his magazine article. You know very well, that I never said those shots were from a high powered rifle. And I corrected you about that a couple weeks ago in jfkassassinationforum.com, telling you even then, that they could have come from a handgun. So, your latest repetition of this misrepresentation could only have been done deliberately, and with the full knowledge that you were wrong. At the other forum, you and your partners have done that over and over and over again. It's impossible to have a coherent discussion with you Michael, when I have to spend 90% of the time untwisting your misrepresentations. Why don't you deal with this stuff, without all the crap? Robert, If any of this were true I would gladly agree. It is not. If you are not claiming in your video that it was a high powered rifle, why do you use the term rifle over 12 times in those two parts? If you believe it was a pistol why is the word pistol NEVER mentioned? If you believe it was subsonic ammo, why is the word subsonic never used? Why would you say that " no assassin would carry an assembled rifle......" If in fact you were not talking about a rifle? Why would you use the term sniper? Is there such a thing as a sling shot sniper? Frankly on the other forum I have shown you these same errors, and you just disregard them by saying that I misrepresent you. You use this to try to work out of the fix you are in, and it is apparent. I did not make the video you did. You used those terms, not I. Now you have been proven wrong, and just do not wish to admit that, so you are trying to say that you never meant a rifle at all! We all want to know.....why would you say rifle if you had not meant rifle? Now are we going to get to the multiple other issues I posted about your videos first two installments, or are you going to continue to back peddle rather than just admit you may need to rethink some issues. That is what an honorable researcher would do. Mike

What's that Mike? His innocence? Let's start with this question first and then I'll start a fresh thread... Lee Fair enough my friend. I do not know about your background. Mine was military. That means a lot to me. In notes that Oswald wrote before giving a lecture he wrote that the agree with Ike in that the USMC should be disbanded. And yet, when he is arrested we have photos and a property sheet that shows he was wearing his Marine Corp ring. I guess this would be lost on some, to me it is significant. I know what that ring means to me, and I just can not comprehend making the comment that the USMC should be disbanded. Perhaps different things hold a different level of significance to some than others, but to me there is something strange about all this. Mike Hi Mike I know aspects of the USMC ring has been discussed on a couple of other threads but your question about the speech he gave is an interesting one. I'll start a new thread once I've got the little ones to sleep. Regards Lee P.S. I believe it was Harry Truman he was agreeing with... Lee, I stand corrected and of course you are right! Sorry for the error, I should have consulted my notes. Ike was the one LHO commented should be shot. Chilling really. Hope you had a great day! Mike

I would rather use a polygraph(and maybe sodium-pentathol and LSD)) to sound out McAdams, Barb and Viklund... KK I am sure the feeling is mutual.

Don, If there is nothing more that we ever agree on, you hit the nail on the head here. We all enjoy the research. I enjoy the material, and the people I have met along the way. I appreciate the friends I have made, and not one single theory, no matter how epic, or how case breaking it might be, would be worth the risk of damaging a single friendship. I really appreciate this post Don, and I mean that with sincerity.

Mike, That's an interesting suggestion. However, I think you're a bit off at the end; they'd be discussing who the conspirators were that rigged the machine. As this thread has displayed, there is Jim Fetzer, there is Judyth Vary Baker. And then there are the conspirators, the collaborators and the traitors. Cheers, Glenn Glenn, Man why did I not think of that? Thanks for the laugh of the night.

Robert, All one has to do is watch your video to know this is not true. You specifically go into great detail about assembling a rifle before hand and all the issues (as you perceive them) with using a silencer. You even specifically quote an article in which the author talks about some of the inherent issues with rifle suppressors. Not one single time is there ever the mention of the word pistol in your video, and also at no time is there the mention of the word subsonic. This is in both parts 1 and 2. So what words did you use? Lets have a look. Sniper 6 times Shot 25+ times GUN shot 10 times Rifle 6+ times You use the phrase "No assassin would would enter the plaza with a fully assembled rifle" And last but not least the article which you reference is titled: Yep you guessed it. "The use of sound suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES" You tell us now that you never said the shots came from a high powered rifle, and yet the very article you reference is "The use of suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES" You tell us now that you never imply they come from any kind of rifle, and yet the word rifle is used many times in your videos. I might add again that the word SUBSONIC is NEVER USED nor is the word PISTOL. To top it all off, you then accuse me of misrepresenting you. I am doing no such thing, I am simply showing you the magnitude of the errors in your research, which are epic. One would think that as a researcher you would find value in that, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting you when all I have done is simply taken the evidence you have offered, and shown you that it is incorrect. I would very much appreciate an apology from you about this. It was very unfair of you to accuse me of misrepresenting you when I did no such thing and it is obvious for everyone to see. Mike

Um...Robert....Thats exactly what I just said. Well I do believe that the evidence shows significantly that Oswald was very likely the shooter. Perhaps you missed the part of my last post that said:"First let me say that in respect to BK I will not use the term Oswald in referencing the shooter. Bill makes a valid point that there is no 100% proof that Oswald was the shooter. I believe the evidence strongly points to Oswald, and Bill knows this. But out of respect for his work I will defer." See above explanation and read it twice to make sure you understand it. My "story" has not changed. Robert you just told us in the last post you made that "...And that makes perfect sense, since we can see that no-one was startled by any of the shots prior to frame 290-291." Now your telling us you do see a reaction in 223? It looks like you are starting to see the light. Good for you Robert! I have a hard time believing that after 46 years there would be any "new" theories. I would also suggest that you do a little reading before you say "...that no-one[sic] believes on EITHER side of this debate". I highly doubt you know what everyone believes. I highly doubt at this point that you know what you believe, your theory is changing already. Thats fine. Its the only honorable thing to do when you believe you have made a mistake. If you believe my theory is all that crazy, perhaps you should look into the theories the FBI and SS had initially. For all I know they may still hold these ideas today. I also do not think it is at all impossible for the rifle to have been fired once in the early 190's and cycled to fire again in the range of 223. Alvarez, Scott, and Hartman all put the 2nd largest jiggle of the Z film right in the early 190's. A shot in the early 190's also would be timestamped by the Willis Photo in 202, and fits quite well with the statements of Betzner, Brennan, Willis, Towner, and a host of others. I also would like to ask you if you plan to respond to any other parts of my review of your videos? So far if the silencer issue is all that you have to dispute, and it looks like you are changing your mind on that, then I would tell you that there are still a few more hurdles to get over in reconciling your first two videos. Not to worry I will give you plenty of time before we move on to parts 3 and 4. There sure are some whoppers in there. Mike

Seems to me Jim you are in this up to your ears. If you have this much faith in Judyth, then why not hop a plane buy her some groceries and arrange a polygraph? At least the conversation could change to excuses for why she failed it.

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community. Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet, each with their own individual take on what they think happened. Michael, I use the phrase with a touch of sarcasm. I certainly don't feel like I'm part of a "Community"...I think I did at one time, however. I attended the 2005 "Cracking the Case Conference" with a sense of being part of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community. By the time the conference was over I no longer felt like a member, but more like a Critic of the Critics, which is where I'm at now. It seems to me the Experts in the case wage jihad against the evidence -- witnesses are demonized, Dealey Plaza photos are labeled fakes, properly prepared medical evidence is dismissed in favor of improperly prepared evidence. And the prima facie cases for conspiracy are consistently denied. In the context of the on-going cover-up, why waste time and resources developing "disinformation agents" when well-meaning, ambitious folks will do all the heavy lifting for free? Cliff, I could not agree more. You are definitely well meaning, and ambitious, I just hope you have a strong back. Your doing a magnificent job. Mike I have no ambitions whatsoever. I'm not writing a book -- I don't think it takes a book to get down the essential facts of the case. I don't associate in any way shape or form with other researchers, although there are many I admire. I've got two pieces of original research on the internet and neither has my name attached to it. I don't attend conferences (with two exceptions). I don't consider myself an expert. I think the case is way more simple than others make it appear. I like to engage in rhetorical combat, which in itself is obfuscationary in that it lends the appearance of (false) equivalency between the prima facie cases for conspiracy and the many baseless assertions to the contrary. Which is why I won't be engaging you much, Mike. I figured you wouldn't be. And I am ok with that, because we both know why. I would skeedaddle to if I were in your position.

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community. Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet, each with their own individual take on what they think happened. Michael, I use the phrase with a touch of sarcasm. I certainly don't feel like I'm part of a "Community"...I think I did at one time, however. I attended the 2005 "Cracking the Case Conference" with a sense of being part of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community. By the time the conference was over I no longer felt like a member, but more like a Critic of the Critics, which is where I'm at now. It seems to me the Experts in the case wage jihad against the evidence -- witnesses are demonized, Dealey Plaza photos are labeled fakes, properly prepared medical evidence is dismissed in favor of improperly prepared evidence. And the prima facie cases for conspiracy are consistently denied. In the context of the on-going cover-up, why waste time and resources developing "disinformation agents" when well-meaning, ambitious folks will do all the heavy lifting for free? Cliff, I could not agree more. You are definitely well meaning, and ambitious, I just hope you have a strong back. Your doing a magnificent job. Mike

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community. Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet, each with their own individual take on what they think happened. Well Said Sir Well said

I could not have said this better myself. A Psyop designed to "confound and confuse" the movement into oblivion. Not to mention some of the idiocy spit out by these supposed "experts" in the public arena, thus creating or causing much morwe prudent investigators to look foolish. Sometime I still cannot believe to this very day that people are still debating in favor of the Lone Nut Theory...my good god. We have to move on and get to the meat, which is getting "rotten" by the day. (40+ years of running in circles and disinfo. agents can do that to "good meat") B.A., I think the "Expert Culture" phenomenon is the result of the vagaries of human nature. The case is fascinating, and so people put a lot of study into certain areas and they want their work to have importance. If their goal is to answer "The Question of Conspiracy" then they're naturally going to deny that the "Question" was answered long ago. I suspect the people who actively, knowingly pushed the cover-up learned that they didn't need "disinformation agents." The armchair citizen-detectives naturally attracted to the case would generate all the mis-information the cover-up required. That's why I think the greatest engine of obfuscation in the murder of JFK is not the US government or the mainstream media anymore: it's the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community itself. Or more correctly the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory Critical Research Community.

Pat, I don't know if you've had a chance to view the video or not, but please let let me clarify what I am saying. When Oswald's rifle was tested by acoustics experts they discovered that it generated a 130 decibel shock wave within a ten foot radius of the bullet and a muzzle blast that to the ears of the limo passengers, would have generated a level ranging from 115-130db, depending on the distance from the rifle. Other high powered rifles are are known to be twice that loud. That was many times louder than the level that is known to generate visible startle reactions, which is exactly what we see, following the known shot at 312 and the shot at 285, which I have been talking about for many years. But there were no startle reactions at all, prior to 285. People looked around with a "what was that" kind of reaction, but that was much different than the dramatic reactions following those other two shots. The lack of startle reactions, combined with the large consensus who only heard one early report (which most did not recognize then, as a gunshot) strongly suggests, that the early shots were suppressed. They simply could not have come from Oswald's or any other high powered rifle. I firmly believe that JFK and Connally were either hit by one bullet at 223, or they were hit almost simultaneously, by a semi-automatic weapon. But whichever it was, nobody heard the shot(s), including John Connally. JFK had to have been hit at or very close to 223, Pat. His rising arms had nothing to do with reaching up to his neck wound. It was entirely a neurological reaction, which means it had to be VERY fast. His right hand and arm began to rise at 226, which is a perfect match with a shot at 223. That has to trump the subjective recollections of witnesses trying to remember where the limo was when they heard the first shot. I suspect that each of those people actually heard the shot at 160 and it just took a small amount of time to sink in. Again, even suppressed high power rifle shots are over 100db, using sub sonic ammo. Regular ammo would be much louder. These shots would have been fully audible in the plaza and heard by many, especially those closest to the shooter. I would also suggest that the dictabelt would certainly have picked these up. The firearms factoid of suppressed shots is the easiest of myths to disprove. Mike, I've done a bit of reading on this topic as well, and I think you are incorrect. The sound of a suppressed shot would be lost in the sounds of the cheering crowd and motorcycles. Surprisingly, I found support for this in a most unexpected place... From chapter 20 at patspeer.com: "After my study of the eyewitness statements and Zapruder film suggested that at least one burst of shots--the one (or two) shots hitting Kennedy and Connally around frame 224--was not heard by the crowd, I decided to read up on the use of silencers and subsonic ammunition. While some "experts", including the FBI's Robert Frazier in the trial of Clay Shaw, have been dismissive about the use of a silencer on 11-22-63, claiming the shots would still have been heard, they ignore that the use of a silencer still had its advantages. Vincent Bugliosi, in his book Reclaiming History, admits as much. In arguing that Oswald could not have been a hit man, because a hit man would have used a silencer, he unwittingly undercut many of his supporters, who'd been insisting for years that the use of a silencer was impractical and unlikely. On page 1452, Bugliosi quotes an unnamed LAPD firearms expert and asserts that by 1963 silencers were sophisticated enough to reduce the sound of a rifle to nothing louder than "the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer." Bugliosi's expert said, furthermore, that state-of-the-art silencers at the time "probably wouldn't have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd." Pat, We do not even with today's technology have silencers that would make a high powered rifle shot sound like hitting a wood pile with a hammer. There are silencers that can do this, but not with high power rifles. Sub9 configurations, sure, .22 low velocity ammo, sure. High powered rifle ammunition no. The very best technology we have today can barely make subsonic ammo dampen to 100dB. This certainly would have been heard. http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf well, there's the problem, Mike. You're thinking inside the box. Who says the bullet or bullets striking JFK and Connally circa 223 were fired from a high-powered rifle? The CIA's manual on assassinations says a .22 firing subsonic ammunition oughta work just fine. Pat, I address the high power rifle because that is what Robert speculates on in his video. I would suggest a close look at the ballistics involved in a .22 firing subsonic ammo at a target over 100 feet away. I think you will find humor in that idea, and if you think that is comical wait until you read about subsonic .22 pistol shooting. The idea of engaging a target over 100 feet away with this type of weapon is ridiculous. It would be ridiculous to consider with even something as substantial as an MP5 suppressed and shooting sub 9mm rounds. Standard subsonic .22 ammo is 38 grains and about 1050 Fps@ 93 ft lbs This is UNSUPPRESSED. Why not just shoot with a pellet gun? Walther makes many in the .22 cal range that fire at 1000 fps. Specifications: Model: Falcon Hunter Caliber: .22 Velocity: 1000FPS Ammo Type: Pellets Body Components: Polymer Stock with Metal Barrel and Receiver Overall Length: 49.00 in Barrel Length: 19.75 in Barrel Style: Rifled Fire Mode: Single Shot Cocking Effort: 45 lbs Trigger Effort: 5.2 lbs Trigger Adjust: Single Stage Action: Break Barrel Power plant: Spring-piston Gun Weight: 8.25 lbs Front Sight: Fiber Optic I just can not for the life of me picture an assassin with something akin to a pellet gun.

Actually it was one early shot and then two close shots at the end. EX. Miss WILLIS. Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. I have to tell you. In all the different accounts I have read about the Z film. I have NEVER in my life, heard anyone say that they could not see anyone startled by shots before 290-291. I think I am going to have to hang onto this as another epic quote. I guess you just missed the whole 223 -224 episode? Anyhow more to the point of your question. Of course thats all I believe there was. 3 Shots. There is no other ballistic evidence to support any other shots, or shooters. As for most witnesses not recognizing the first shot. Why would this surprise anyone? It is not like they were going to a trick shooting event. They never expected to hear gunfire. So when one says the first shot did not sound like gunfire, I can easily understand why. This does not take a huge leap into the world of silencers and other subversiveness. I do not recall acknowledging "more than one early shot", but nice try. Of course the witnesses only heard one shot by this time, that's all that had been fired. Definitely not rocket science. So now you are changing your position from a rifle to a pistol. No worries there. The video you posted is of a .22 caliber rifle, and a .22 caliber pistol, neither of which even comes close to representing a High powered rifle that your videos and past comments portray. I suggest before you get to carried away that you check the ballistic properties for the .22 using suppressor equipment, and also consult someone with experience on the insanity of engaging a target in a moving vehicle from an elevated position with a pistol. That prospect is humerus. No assassin in their right mind is going to engage a target at over 100' with a .22 caliber pistol. By the way, I have no recollection of us discussing anything involving a pistol in the past, as you claim. If we had I assure you you would have met with the same reply. I also find it entertaining to see your theory evolve. But you should be commended for this, as correction is the only way you will ever get the truth. Again, it is pure ballistic idiocy to think that someone would engage a target with the types of weapons in your video. Especially from an elevated position over 100' away from the target in a moving vehicle. Ah the winds of change. Its good to see that some of what I have been teaching you is sinking in. This is a complete reverse from your video in which you adamantly say that the reason no one heard the shots is that the rifle was suppressed. You then go on to tell us in great detail how it would be a disadvantage for someone to Assemble a rifle at the target area. So we know you were talking about a high powered rifle, as you go to great lengths to discuss this. First let me say that in respect to BK I will not use the term Oswald in referencing the shooter. Bill makes a valid point that there is no 100% proof that Oswald was the shooter. I believe the evidence strongly points to Oswald, and Bill knows this. But out of respect for his work I will defer. I will say that there is strong evidence that an unsuppressed weapon fired ALL the shots. The reason these shots that you alleged were not heard, is simply because they did not happen. But alas you are confusing the issue here. First you say that JFK reacted to a shot in Towner. The in the 160 area Jackie is reacting in turning towards JFK. Then you say JFK is reacting to a shot in the late 180's early 190's by grimacing and shielding his face, which he is clearly not doing per the Z film and the Witness testimony. Now you are saying that no one reacted to these shots. Which is it? Quite correct, they were not fired by anyone. For clarification to those that might not understand my position. I believe there are two possibilities. I believe that the first shot fired was in the mid 190's. Hill, Willis, Betzner, and a host of others seems to confirm this. I believe that JBC is hit in the early 230's, and of course the head shot at 313. I believe this is one scenario. The next one is very difficult for me to admit. But it is the SBT. I never in my life have thought I would be the one saying that, but in light of recent research, I think it is a viable possibility far more than I ever had before. For now I am sticking with 3 shots 3 hits, but I am giving the SBT a considerable thought. Please lets not let this get off into an SBT discussion, there is always another thread for that, I just simply wanted those who do not know to understand my position. Mike

Pat, I don't know if you've had a chance to view the video or not, but please let let me clarify what I am saying. When Oswald's rifle was tested by acoustics experts they discovered that it generated a 130 decibel shock wave within a ten foot radius of the bullet and a muzzle blast that to the ears of the limo passengers, would have generated a level ranging from 115-130db, depending on the distance from the rifle. Other high powered rifles are are known to be twice that loud. That was many times louder than the level that is known to generate visible startle reactions, which is exactly what we see, following the known shot at 312 and the shot at 285, which I have been talking about for many years. But there were no startle reactions at all, prior to 285. People looked around with a "what was that" kind of reaction, but that was much different than the dramatic reactions following those other two shots. The lack of startle reactions, combined with the large consensus who only heard one early report (which most did not recognize then, as a gunshot) strongly suggests, that the early shots were suppressed. They simply could not have come from Oswald's or any other high powered rifle. I firmly believe that JFK and Connally were either hit by one bullet at 223, or they were hit almost simultaneously, by a semi-automatic weapon. But whichever it was, nobody heard the shot(s), including John Connally. JFK had to have been hit at or very close to 223, Pat. His rising arms had nothing to do with reaching up to his neck wound. It was entirely a neurological reaction, which means it had to be VERY fast. His right hand and arm began to rise at 226, which is a perfect match with a shot at 223. That has to trump the subjective recollections of witnesses trying to remember where the limo was when they heard the first shot. I suspect that each of those people actually heard the shot at 160 and it just took a small amount of time to sink in. Again, even suppressed high power rifle shots are over 100db, using sub sonic ammo. Regular ammo would be much louder. These shots would have been fully audible in the plaza and heard by many, especially those closest to the shooter. I would also suggest that the dictabelt would certainly have picked these up. The firearms factoid of suppressed shots is the easiest of myths to disprove. Mike, I've done a bit of reading on this topic as well, and I think you are incorrect. The sound of a suppressed shot would be lost in the sounds of the cheering crowd and motorcycles. Surprisingly, I found support for this in a most unexpected place... From chapter 20 at patspeer.com: "After my study of the eyewitness statements and Zapruder film suggested that at least one burst of shots--the one (or two) shots hitting Kennedy and Connally around frame 224--was not heard by the crowd, I decided to read up on the use of silencers and subsonic ammunition. While some "experts", including the FBI's Robert Frazier in the trial of Clay Shaw, have been dismissive about the use of a silencer on 11-22-63, claiming the shots would still have been heard, they ignore that the use of a silencer still had its advantages. Vincent Bugliosi, in his book Reclaiming History, admits as much. In arguing that Oswald could not have been a hit man, because a hit man would have used a silencer, he unwittingly undercut many of his supporters, who'd been insisting for years that the use of a silencer was impractical and unlikely. On page 1452, Bugliosi quotes an unnamed LAPD firearms expert and asserts that by 1963 silencers were sophisticated enough to reduce the sound of a rifle to nothing louder than "the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer." Bugliosi's expert said, furthermore, that state-of-the-art silencers at the time "probably wouldn't have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd." Pat, We do not even with today's technology have silencers that would make a high powered rifle shot sound like hitting a wood pile with a hammer. There are silencers that can do this, but not with high power rifles. Sub9 configurations, sure, .22 low velocity ammo, sure. High powered rifle ammunition no. The very best technology we have today can barely make subsonic ammo dampen to 100dB. This certainly would have been heard. http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf

Yes Ma'am and I could not agree more!

B, Always a pleasure to hear from you. I always get a kick out of that photo. It misrepresents almost every angle of the SBT, and yet they used it to attempt to give the SBT veracity. No wonder the CT gang piled on it. Hope you have been well! Mike hi mike..specter was always apparently out of his element...especially when left on his own in charge... b B, Man you hit the nail on the head there. While I am not yet convinced that the SBT did happen, I am convinced that it could have. This has been a drastic change for me. What amazes me is that he had all the evidence to prove the SBT at his disposal and basically flubbed the whole job. This to me is unbelievable. This is the main reason I think the way I do. I take no ones word for anything. I have to resolve things for myself and to my own satisfaction. Along the way I have been shown where I am incorrect and have to adjust the methods I use to analyze things. I am far more interested in the truth than I am in being "right". I might add I love to read your offerings. I may not always agree with you, but your stuff is very well thought out and is much appreciated. Mike