Mike Williams

b..

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

p.s. there is something that bugs the hell out of me about Oswald and perhaps you can help me resolve it!

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

Well you could start off by telling me HOW it is wrong. Its a simple drawing. 21*impact through a 30* forward leaning target.

Prove the drawing wrong Martin. Anyone can recreate it and see that it is exactly correct.

Why is where or how I post such a concern to you? Does my posting create issues for your theories as well as so many others?

One thing at a time Martin, prove the drawing wrong.

Is this your typical M.O. to just simply say someone is wrong without proving it?

You apparently don't read the replies.

Let me repeat from Duncan's forum:

Mike, you used the wrong basis line (in red) You should have used the one running along the limo chrome or

even better to rotate the whole Croft image before drawing lines.

To measure on bodies is very difficult. They are not boxes. Anatomy is never square.

Look at Jackie. Altough she sits erect, you'll notice a slope at her back. 10°?

Whats with the Governour? 35°?

I hope you understand what i mean.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...6.html#msg37536

Pay more attention Mike!

Martin,

Interesting what you proposed is exactly what I did. The lines you refer to at the limo chrome are a 3* marker, which I then used to rotate the limo to the 3* decline down Elm. I guess you did not compare that to the original croft photo. If you had this would have been obvious.

The lower baseline (red) is nothing more than a 90* marker with which to draw the 3* marker (above it in red). This was used to align the Limo to the 3* decline of Elm.

Because impact angles off the vertical plane are calculated using the INVCOS function the yellow lines represent the horizontal and vertical planes needed to calculate the impact angle. These are reference lines.

The of course you have the 30* forward lean measured off the last yellow line.

The picture is in the proper perspective and the drawing is in relation, properly, to the photo.

The drawing was done to test the theory that the bullet could exit higher than it entered, and while not conclusive is sure would support that this is worth a closer look.

I was paying attention. It just so happens that what you wrote, does not impeach the work.

Cliff,

How very untrue.

Consider.

Croft 3 just seconds before the first shot. JFK has his upper body angled at 30*

This drawing replicates a 6.5mm bullet(MC) coming down from a 21* angle (SN)into a 30* forward leaning target (JFK).

Note that the exit is higher than the entry. As the thickness of this target is not as thick as JFK we can then realize that the thicker(front to back) the target the higher the bullet will exit.

Also note that the entry wound would measure 7mm in height.

Anyone can replicate this drawing for themselves and see there is no trickery of numbers.

Mike

Mike, didn't i tell you that your drawing is plain wrong?

Have you not you read it?

You have so much time to post all around but no time to educate yourself when it comes to trajectories.

Thats not your homeland but you're not hesitate to spread your wrong guesswork.

Mike, Mike...what shall we do with you?

Well you could start off by telling me HOW it is wrong. Its a simple drawing. 21*impact through a 30* forward leaning target.

Prove the drawing wrong Martin. Anyone can recreate it and see that it is exactly correct.

Why is where or how I post such a concern to you? Does my posting create issues for your theories as well as so many others?

One thing at a time Martin, prove the drawing wrong.

Is this your typical M.O. to just simply say someone is wrong without proving it?

Mike, I did notice a mistake in your last critique of Robert's scenario. It is a point on which Robert is absolutely correct.

People did not hear a shot at frame 223/224. People watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot. e.g Woodward, Powers, said he was waving and then jerked to the left as a response to the shot. This happens BEFORE Kennedy goes behind the sign in the Z-film.

As a response to this fact, the HSCA theorized the single-bullet shot hit Kennedy circa frame 190.

It was only through the shenanigans of Lattimer and Posner that the SBT got moved back to 224. In his book Bugliosi plays the WC 210-224 card, and never acknowledges that he presented a photography expert to the jury in his 1986 mock trial, to prove to them Kennedy was hit around 190.

If you're as independent-minded as I suspect you are, you'll break away from the current LNT group-think, and realize that the currently proposed dogma--a first shot miss at 160, SBT at 224, and a head shot at 313, is Malarkey with a capital M.

Who knows? Maybe you'll be the first LNT to come up with a scenario that makes sense?

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 did notice a mistake in your last critique of Robert's scenario. It is a point on which Robert is absolutely correct.

People did not hear a shot at frame 223/224. People watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot. e.g Woodward, Powers, said he was waving and then jerked to the left as a response to the shot. This happens BEFORE Kennedy goes behind the sign in the Z-film.

As a response to this fact, the HSCA theorized the single-bullet shot hit Kennedy circa frame 190.

It was only through the shenanigans of Lattimer and Posner that the SBT got moved back to 224. In his book Bugliosi plays the WC 210-224 card, and never acknowledges that he presented a photography expert to the jury in his 1986 mock trial, to prove to them Kennedy was hit around 190.

If you're as independent-minded as I suspect you are, you'll break away from the current LNT group-think, and realize that the currently proposed dogma--a first shot miss at 160, SBT at 224, and a head shot at 313, is Malarkey with a capital M.

Who knows? Maybe you'll be the first LNT to come up with a scenario that makes sense?

Pat,

Perhaps I should have stated that differently. People did hear the shot that contributed to the movements at 223-224. In any case they would have heard a silenced shot as well. I would have no issue with the SBT hitting JFK at 190. In fact I have posted this as the first shot on several occasions. See the first shot first hit thread I wrote a few years ago. It makes an excellent point in showing how that first shot related to the Wilis photo at 202, and also shows the shot timing in relation to Betzner.

Robert is incorrect at any time when he says a suppressed shot would not be heard. See the information provided on suppressors in my original post.

So if we are now to say that this shot happened at say 195, then Roberts shooter had even less time to remove his silencer and reacquire the target.

So tell me, Michael. Since the large majority of witnesses only heard one shot prior to the very end of the attack, do you think it is more likely that they would overlook a suppressed shot or an unsuppressed shot?

They would over look neither Robert, as I clearly informed you that suppressors emit over 100db blast in high power rifles, even if they are using sub sonic ammo.

The very notion that these would not be audible is evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about in regard to firearms and ammo.

No I think Oswalds intel connections are supposition, just like everything else you cite, however if you come up with those records id sure love to jump on this band wagon with ya.

Ill be waiting for those official doctors reports of the poison, but I aint holdin my breath.

Mike/Cliff

I don't wish to hijack this thread but I'm assuming that it's ran out of steam through sheer frustration.

The fact that you suggest "Oswald's intel connections" are supposition got me thinking Mike. First off, have you read John Newman's book "Oswald and the CIA"?

We all, unfortunately, have to suppose and pre-suppose things in relation to the JFK evidence because so much of it is missing, tainted, or contradicted by other evidence. I'm sure you live your life supposing and pre-supposing things just to get through each day. I pre-suppose that if I don't look left and right each time I cross the road I could get hit by a truck. It serves me well.

I have just finished reading Hugh Murray's article from Volume 1, Number 5 of the Fourth Decade (available at the Mary Ferrell Foundation) and the question of "suppositions" has me thinking along these lines Mike.

Murray's article, entitled 'Surveillance State Louisiana - Coming of Age in New Orleans in the 1950's and 60's', goes some way in explaining who Lee Harvey Oswald was to the "leftist" organisations in New Orleans during this time period. The answer, unfortunate as it is to Warren Commission defenders, is no one. Not a dicky-bird. Not a sausage. Nada. Zip. Zero.

To an organisation like the FPCC LHO was a nobody. To an organisation like CORE Lee Harvey Oswald was a nobody. To an organisation like the NAACP Lee Harvey Oswald was a nobody. To "leftist" affiliated students in the NO area universities Lee Harvey Oswald was a nobody. In other words, in New Orleans in 1963, anybody who was a socialist, had socialist leanings, any liberal democrats or anybody who was an out and out communist - no one knew who the hell this kid was.

So let's flip this:

Who did know him in New Orleans or knew he was in New Orleans?

Guy Banister knew who he was, the Friends of Democratic Cuba knew who was, David Ferrie knew who he was, Clay Shaw knew who he was, Dean Andrews knew who he was, Gerard F. Tujague knew who he was, the Civil Air Patrol knew who he was, the White Russian (anti-bolshevik) community of Dallas knew who he was and that he was in NO, Sergio Arcacha Smith knew who he was, Antonio Veciana knew who he was, Carlos Bringuier knew who he was, Celso Hernandez knew who he was, James Hosty knew who he was, John Quigley knew who was, Ed Butler knew who he was, Bill Slatter knew who he was, the CRC knew who he was, the DRE knew who he was, Georger Joannides probably knew who he was, Marvin Gheesling probably knew who and where he was, Ann Goodpasture knew who he was, Ann Egerton knew who he was, Win Scott probably knew who he was and JJ Angelton probably knew who he was, where he was, why he was there and what he had for breakfast each morning...

So, in summary - people on the left who knew him in New Orleans, erm...virtually no-one...

...and people on the right who knew him in New Orleans, erm...virtually everyone.

Am I cool to "suppose" certain things from this?

Lee

P.S. If you want to start a new thread give us a nod...

Lee,

Finally some sanity and your points are not lost on me.

As I have said, and will continue to say I have not ruled out the thought of a conspiracy. The problem with me is I am more of a ballistics person than anything else. I guess its a case of go with what you know.

At any rate, If the truth were told today and I found out that LHO was a part of a conspiracy I would not be shocked at all. I believe there was one shooter, and I believe there is an exceptionally high likelihood it was Oswald. I would not be shocked to find some one had put him up to it.

I have no doubt there was much in the way of CYA after the assassination. I believe this is because JFK had many enemies, many of whom, I am sure were planning against him. Even if they had no part of the assassination, it would still never do to have this come to light.

My main area of interest is the HOW it was done. I figure the HOW will lead me to the who.

There is not one bit of any evidence here that leads to a complex professional hit. It was a simplistic ugly and, by my standards a horribly botched job.

I would be willing to read anything you offer and could certainly stand to learn more about Oswald. I really know little about him beyond his Marine life and abilities. I mean I know the basics, Russia, etc. But I lack info on the Walker shooting for example.

I am not as closed minded as I may seem, however, I am certainly no ones fool and do not suffer fools well. I am much like Tom Purvis in this regard and have no issue with that as Tom is certainly someone I think very highly of.

I would be glad to participate in a new thread with you Lee, just have a bit O' patience with me as I said I have much to learn about LHO.

I think you kindly for extending the offer.

Best to you Lee,

Mike

p.s. there is something that bugs the hell out of me about Oswald and perhaps you can help me resolve it!

Educating you is a waste of time, Mr. Williams.

No Sir,

Trying to convince me with such garbage is a waste of time.

By the way. I note there was no "historical" report from any Doctor verifying a toxin has been used as you postulated.

Somehow, I figured this is where you would chose to disengage.

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

This puerile rhetoric is all you've got?

No actually I have a question.

You earlier claim that since I was not involved with the CIA testing of the paralytics, then I could have no idea what they would do. Is that not the case?

How then can you be so sure about what they do?

Because I can read the historical record.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

According to top CIA officials blood soluble paralytics took 2 seconds

to take effect.

Roughly two seconds after being shot JFK went from frantically

grabbing at his throat/collar/tie to being seized up and barely

moving and certainly NOT grabbing at his throat/collar/tie.

Jackie said the look on his face was "quizzical," as if he were

suffering from a "slight headache."

Is that what people look like when they're shot in the throat with convention

ammo -- they look like they have a slight headache?

Hence, I ask if you were involved in the testing.

Additionally you are correct in that I did not see the body, neither did you. So we are both interpreting the evidence based on what we have.

And what we have are 3 trained doctors who came to a preliminary conclusion

that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, a conclusion supported by the

neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, the testimonies of the witnesses with the best

view of JFK, and the research of Tom Wilson and Steve Kober.

We are both coming to different conclusions.

\

False equivalency. I cite evidence. You cite nothing.

Obviously some are far more based on speculation than others.

(poison darts...I kinda like to type it just to get a laugh)

And I guess you think Oswald's intelligence community connections

were a real hoot?

Please show me ANYWHERE where a Doctors final conclusion was that JFK was hit with a paralytic. Anywhere at all.

You claim you are citing the "historical Record" then it should be easy enough to show me exactly where this record says that.

No I think Oswalds intel connections are supposition, just like everything else you cite, however if you come up with those records id sure love to jump on this band wagon with ya.

Yes someone could have a quizzical look from being shot. I have seen many people have just this look, not knowing what the hell just happened to em. I know this maybe a bit logical for you, but its very true.

By the way Cliff that link you posted is to historical nothing.

You cite your interpretation of the evidence based on your obvious lack of understanding of said such.

Ill be waiting for those official doctors reports of the poison, but I aint holdin my breath.

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

This puerile rhetoric is all you've got?

No actually I have a question.

You earlier claim that since I was not involved with the CIA testing of the paralytics, then I could have no idea what they would do. Is that not the case?

How then can you be so sure about what they do? Hence, I ask if you were involved in the testing.

Additionally you are correct in that I did not see the body, neither did you. So we are both interpreting the evidence based on what we have.

We are both coming to different conclusions.

Obviously some are far more based on speculation than others.

(poison darts...I kinda like to type it just to get a laugh)

Drawing lines on paper shows that theoretically it is very possible for a projectile to enter and exit higher in a forward leaning target.

The bullet is on a down ward trajectory, did you not look at the drawing?

I don't see Connally in your drawing. I don't see the low back entrance or

the throat exit.

You are aware that the Single Bullet Theory involves two people?

You really have no clue what you're doing here, do you?

Cliff if you can not manage to negotiate a simple theoretical drawing how much more can I help you?

So are you now telling us that you were not there and directly involved with the CIA testing of paralytics?

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

I can now see why you stand by this theory so staunchly. You were there, you saw it for yourself.

pfffffffft.

Mike

Your Single Bullet Theory requires a wound in the back of JFK's neck so that

the bullet could exit the throat on a downward trajectory and on into Connally.

You can't have a downward trajectory into Connally if the bullet exits JFK on

an upward trajectory, which would have to happen given the back wound was

several inches below the throat wound.

Cliff,

How very untrue.

Consider.

Croft 3 just seconds before the first shot. JFK has his upper body angled at 30*

This drawing replicates a 6.5mm bullet(MC) coming down from a 21* angle (SN)into a 30* forward leaning target (JFK).

Note that the exit is higher than the entry.

How does this line up with a strike on Connally?

Where are you showing an entry point 4 inches below the bottom

of his collar, an exit out of his throat, and a downward trajectory

into Connally?

Drawing lines on a paper means nothing.

Drawing lines on paper shows that theoretically it is very possible for a projectile to enter and exit higher in a forward leaning target.

The bullet is on a down ward trajectory, did you not look at the drawing?

Furthermore the difference in impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2 degrees. How would you account for that?

Your Single Bullet Theory requires a wound in the back of JFK's neck so that

the bullet could exit the throat on a downward trajectory and on into Connally.

You can't have a downward trajectory into Connally if the bullet exits JFK on

an upward trajectory, which would have to happen given the back wound was

several inches below the throat wound.

Cliff,

How very untrue.

Consider.

Croft 3 just seconds before the first shot. JFK has his upper body angled at 30*

This drawing replicates a 6.5mm bullet(MC) coming down from a 21* angle (SN)into a 30* forward leaning target (JFK).

Note that the exit is higher than the entry. As the thickness of this target is not as thick as JFK we can then realize that the thicker(front to back) the target the higher the bullet will exit.

Also note that the entry wound would measure 7mm in height.

Anyone can replicate this drawing for themselves and see there is no trickery of numbers.

Mike

Yes, you can see the left index finger trying to pull at the tie. but then the left fist rises to the level of the right fist, which is in front of his mouth. People choking on food make the same combination of signaling and defensive gestures, as if they're trying to cough up food into their hand.

Jackie takes hold of his left arm and brings it down - and JFK permits this, because he is trying not to violate the decorum of the parade. This is also seems to be among Jackie's concerns.

As he lets her pull his left arm down, the right hand goes limp and drops. I believe that, between the pain and the knowledge that he has Jackie's attention, he is allowing himself to give in to loss of consciousness at this moment.

However, as his head declines, JFK's right hand forms a fist again, and rises to throat level. You can see it just below his cheek in frame 312. I believe that either the struggle to stay conscious, or the declining of the head, brought enough pain to his throat that he raised that hand again defensively.

However you read his motions - JFK is not "paralyzed" in the sense that we understand the word; his arms move and hands change position. We are watching a man struggling for consciousness, life, and dignity.

David,

I would say that is a very accurate assessment. Obviously JFK is not "paralyzed" . He is however struggling for breath and consciousness.

Best,

Mike

Mike, I did notice a mistake in your last critique of Robert's scenario. It is a point on which Robert is absolutely correct.

People did not hear a shot at frame 223/224. People watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot. e.g Woodward, Powers, said he was waving and then jerked to the left as a response to the shot. This happens BEFORE Kennedy goes behind the sign in the Z-film.

As a response to this fact, the HSCA theorized the single-bullet shot hit Kennedy circa frame 190.

It was only through the shenanigans of Lattimer and Posner that the SBT got moved back to 224. In his book Bugliosi plays the WC 210-224 card, and never acknowledges that he presented a photography expert to the jury in his 1986 mock trial, to prove to them Kennedy was hit around 190.

If you're as independent-minded as I suspect you are, you'll break away from the current LNT group-think, and realize that the currently proposed dogma--a first shot miss at 160, SBT at 224, and a head shot at 313, is Malarkey with a capital M.

Who knows? Maybe you'll be the first LNT to come up with a scenario that makes sense?

Pat,

Perhaps I should have stated that differently. People did hear the shot that contributed to the movements at 223-224. In any case they would have heard a silenced shot as well. I would have no issue with the SBT hitting JFK at 190. In fact I have posted this as the first shot on several occasions. See the first shot first hit thread I wrote a few years ago. It makes an excellent point in showing how that first shot related to the Wilis photo at 202, and also shows the shot timing in relation to Betzner.

Robert is incorrect at any time when he says a suppressed shot would not be heard. See the information provided on suppressors in my original post.

So if we are now to say that this shot happened at say 195, then Roberts shooter had even less time to remove his silencer and reacquire the target.

And life just keeps getting easier and easier.

So you cant provide any evidence that this was the accepted theory at the conclusion of the autopsy. Fair enough.

I have posted this information several times.

Why you cannot process this information is a mystery.

I will post it again, as there is value in repetition:

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Why would we "know" there was more than one shooter? I know no such thing.

Probably because you don't appear willing to process information

that runs counter to your preconceived notions.

I'll give you a hint: the back wound was way too low for that round

to have exited the throat on the downward trajectory required by

the Single Bullet Theory.

If you'd done your homework before showing up on this Forum you'd

grasp these things.

Right now it feels like I'm talking to the wall.

There was one weapon found, and the only ballistic evidence in this case leads back to that rifle. Do you have some "hidden" evidence that we do not know about? If you do stop being bashful son and bring it forward.

What good does it do to inform someone who seems impervious to information?

The low back wound and the throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence

of at least two shooters. If you don't understand why that is, I suggest you do

some homework on the basic facts of the case.

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory.(poison dart/ice bullet) How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

A theory that they obviously abandoned. Why else would it not be in the final autopsy report? Oh yes...they altered it. The most common CT sewage expelled when the evidence does not fit the theory.

Hilarious coming from you, Mr. Williams. Why don't you actually read the information I cite,

or is it too much to ask of you?

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

I dont have a problem with its existence, I just chose to disregard it, just like the autopsy Doctors did.

It's good that you admit to disregarding evidence that fouls your deadender Lone Nut world

view. I've noticed the same thing since you've appeared here.

Cliff they had nuclear weapons during this time as well, and just to slow you down, they did not use one of them either.

And the point of this brilliant comment is...?

Ok so the docs discussed the possibility of ice bullets? So what. At this point they were looking for reasons to explain an entrance and no exit, this was of course before they contacted Dallas and found out about the wound in the throat.

They quickly dismissed it as any sane person would.

So now you are telling me that the bullet could not have exited higher than it entered? It that the jist of what you are postulating now? Can you or have you done anything to prove that?

Lets see what you have.

Mike Williams is a fanatical, lone nutter who pretended to be a conspiracy supporter for years, until he was forced to come out of the closet and admit his agenda.

At the jfkassassinationforum.com he follows me around from thread to thread, attacking anything and everything I say and apparently intends to do the same thing in this forum. I invite interested lurkers to weight his "analysis" against mine and make their own call.

Bob

Robert,

I have been posting here for years. Many here know that I supported the conspiracy position whole heatedly for a great deal of that time. So to say I was pretending to support a conspiracy, is ridiculous. I did support it and made no bones about it.

Was I "forced to come out of my closet" certainly, because that is what the shooting evidence supports. It was the only honest and honorable thing to do. This is one of the least understood areas of research. Many just speculate at what they "think" could happen, and this is often not supported by the ballistic evidence.

However the fact that I believe it was a single shooter from behind means just that. It certainly does not mean that there was not a conspiracy. At this point I am willing to support a single shooter position, if that makes me a lone nutter, so be it.

All of this is beyond the point. This case deserves serious and critical research. Unfortunately yours stands up to neither criteria. The issues I raise here are valid. If you feel this is a personal affront, then I suggest you get past that and refute what I have posted.

I will continue to critique your theories, until you give an accurate representation. History deserves this, and frankly so do the earnest researchers of this or any other forum.

Now I suggest you work on correcting some of your errors, instead of crying about being picked on.

Mike

Check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/t...just_reloaded=1

Nelson Montana - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Nelson Montana 206 fans permalink

See Nelson Montana's Profile

Nothing will convince the conspiracy nuts that they're wrong. It defies the very nature of why they believe what they believe. They want to feel as if they're privy to what others missed. It makes them feel superior. They want to believe they can't be fooled.

To them, this would be just another "cover up" perpetuated by the media. And anyone who disagrees is a narrow-minded rube. It's as pathetic as it is perpetual.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 3/04/2010

- thebodyventura I'm a Fan of thebodyventura 11 fans permalink

Do tell us master how LHO was able to call off the President's security in Dallas on Nov 22,1963. This is referenced in oliver Stone's JFK.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 3/04/2010

- Nelson Montana - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Nelson Montana 206 fans permalink

See Nelson Montana's Profile

Oh, well if it was in Oliver Stones movie, it must be true.

See what I mean?

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 3/04/2010

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

-DG3 I'm a Fan of DG3 25 fans permalink

Do tell us how old you are. Does it end with 'teen'?

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 AM on 3/05/2010

- James Fetzer 10 fans permalink

It would be great is Nelson actually knew what he was talking about for a change. By the simple expedient of determining where the bullet that struck JFK hit his back, it is possible refute--conclusively--the "magic bullet" theory. Michael Baden, M.D., has observed that, if the "magic bullet" theory is false, then there have to have been at least six shots from three directions. It is not only false but is not even anatomically possible. You can download the proof, which includes the shirt and jacket that he was wearing, autopsy and FBI diagrams, his personal physician's death certificate, and reenactment photographs, which is archived at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf I have been a fan of Tom Hanks, but in this case, he is on the wrong side of logic, evidence, and history.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 3/05/2010

I actually posted two, but I didn't know that they had published both--typos and all!--until my webmaster send me this:

Someone should get him copies of Armstrong and Horne's books......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/t...a_n_485418.html

Those are amazing replies Jim.

Its amazing how you seemed to have made Montana's point better than he himself did.

Montana hit the nail on the head.

Hi Mike

Can I ask for a favor on behalf of all the CT's on this forum please?

Can you complete Gil Jesus' challenge that he set a week or so ago?

Cheers

Lee

I would be happy to, but I deal in facts, and very much dislike speculation.

Then you should enjoy the challenge because Gil is asking for evidence for his series of questions...

...just have a stab and see how you get on.

Lee

Lee,

I just might. I just found that post and copied them, and am getting ready to go home after the graveyard shift! Get some rest and well see what I can do.

Hope you have a good day!

Mike

Check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/t...just_reloaded=1

Nelson Montana - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Nelson Montana 206 fans permalink

See Nelson Montana's Profile

Nothing will convince the conspiracy nuts that they're wrong. It defies the very nature of why they believe what they believe. They want to feel as if they're privy to what others missed. It makes them feel superior. They want to believe they can't be fooled.

To them, this would be just another "cover up" perpetuated by the media. And anyone who disagrees is a narrow-minded rube. It's as pathetic as it is perpetual.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 3/04/2010

- thebodyventura I'm a Fan of thebodyventura 11 fans permalink

Do tell us master how LHO was able to call off the President's security in Dallas on Nov 22,1963. This is referenced in oliver Stone's JFK.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 3/04/2010

- Nelson Montana - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Nelson Montana 206 fans permalink

See Nelson Montana's Profile

Oh, well if it was in Oliver Stones movie, it must be true.

See what I mean?

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 3/04/2010

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

-DG3 I'm a Fan of DG3 25 fans permalink

Do tell us how old you are. Does it end with 'teen'?

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 AM on 3/05/2010

- James Fetzer 10 fans permalink

It would be great is Nelson actually knew what he was talking about for a change. By the simple expedient of determining where the bullet that struck JFK hit his back, it is possible refute--conclusively--the "magic bullet" theory. Michael Baden, M.D., has observed that, if the "magic bullet" theory is false, then there have to have been at least six shots from three directions. It is not only false but is not even anatomically possible. You can download the proof, which includes the shirt and jacket that he was wearing, autopsy and FBI diagrams, his personal physician's death certificate, and reenactment photographs, which is archived at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf I have been a fan of Tom Hanks, but in this case, he is on the wrong side of logic, evidence, and history.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 3/05/2010

I actually posted two, but I didn't know that they had published both--typos and all!--until my webmaster send me this:

Someone should get him copies of Armstrong and Horne's books......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/t...a_n_485418.html

Those are amazing replies Jim.

Its amazing how you seemed to have made Montana's point better than he himself did.

Montana hit the nail on the head.

Hi Mike

Can I ask for a favor on behalf of all the CT's on this forum please?

Can you complete Gil Jesus' challenge that he set a week or so ago?

Cheers

Lee

I would be happy to, but I deal in facts, and very much dislike speculation.

Check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/t...just_reloaded=1

Nelson Montana - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Nelson Montana 206 fans permalink

See Nelson Montana's Profile

Nothing will convince the conspiracy nuts that they're wrong. It defies the very nature of why they believe what they believe. They want to feel as if they're privy to what others missed. It makes them feel superior. They want to believe they can't be fooled.

To them, this would be just another "cover up" perpetuated by the media. And anyone who disagrees is a narrow-minded rube. It's as pathetic as it is perpetual.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 3/04/2010

- thebodyventura I'm a Fan of thebodyventura 11 fans permalink

Do tell us master how LHO was able to call off the President's security in Dallas on Nov 22,1963. This is referenced in oliver Stone's JFK.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 3/04/2010

- Nelson Montana - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Nelson Montana 206 fans permalink

See Nelson Montana's Profile

Oh, well if it was in Oliver Stones movie, it must be true.

See what I mean?

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 3/04/2010

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

-DG3 I'm a Fan of DG3 25 fans permalink

Do tell us how old you are. Does it end with 'teen'?

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 AM on 3/05/2010

- James Fetzer 10 fans permalink

It would be great is Nelson actually knew what he was talking about for a change. By the simple expedient of determining where the bullet that struck JFK hit his back, it is possible refute--conclusively--the "magic bullet" theory. Michael Baden, M.D., has observed that, if the "magic bullet" theory is false, then there have to have been at least six shots from three directions. It is not only false but is not even anatomically possible. You can download the proof, which includes the shirt and jacket that he was wearing, autopsy and FBI diagrams, his personal physician's death certificate, and reenactment photographs, which is archived at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf I have been a fan of Tom Hanks, but in this case, he is on the wrong side of logic, evidence, and history.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 3/05/2010

I actually posted two, but I didn't know that they had published both--typos and all!--until my webmaster send me this:

Someone should get him copies of Armstrong and Horne's books......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/t...a_n_485418.html

Those are amazing replies Jim.

Its amazing how you seemed to have made Montana's point better than he himself did.

Montana hit the nail on the head.

Cliff,

So many things in this life can be difficult.

One has to appreciate it when things are made easy.

You cited 3 witnesses in your support of a shot entering the front of the throat, and 3 witnesses in support of the President "grabbing his throat"

In another post just a few posts back you asserted the fact that Clint Hill was a trained observer. I for one could not agree more.

What I do not understand Cliff if how you happened to completely miss the fact, that all 3 of your witnesses tell us that this happened right after they heard a shot. And 2 of your witnesses state the shot was from behind.

In fact, Nellie even tells us that she turned to look BECAUSE of the noise from behind.

But I guess that part of the testimony does not matter much really.

And since we know there was more than one shooter what precludes

Nellie responding to a shot fired from behind while JFK was responding

to a shot fired from the front?

They may have been confused what with all the poison darts flying around and stuff. I would imagine it was a very stressful time.

So you are claiming that it isn't possible to fire on a target simultaneously

from both front and back?

I'd say the shots from behind were purposely louder to draw attention from

the shooter in the front.

Not one of your witnesses supports the poison dart theory,

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory. How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

which to most people is just nonsense.

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

All of your witnesses say the Presidents reactions were from a shot.

So?

Poison dart indeed Cliff....Poison dart indeed.

If you would be so kind as to read the Final autopsy report and cite for me where they firmly state the ice bullet struck the throat, I would very much appreciate that.

The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper military autopsy

protocol, and thus has no weight as evidence.

You are unaware --or in denial -- of the fact of conspiracy, so we can't expect you

to admit to the fact that the crime was covered up at the highest levels of the US gov't.

And life just keeps getting easier and easier.

So you cant provide any evidence that this was the accepted theory at the conclusion of the autopsy. Fair enough.

Why would we "know" there was more than one shooter? I know no such thing. There was one weapon found, and the only ballistic evidence in this case leads back to that rifle. Do you have some "hidden" evidence that we do not know about? If you do stop being bashful son and bring it forward.

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory.(poison dart/ice bullet) How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

A theory that they obviously abandoned. Why else would it not be in the final autopsy report? Oh yes...they altered it. The most common CT sewage expelled when the evidence does not fit the theory.

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

I dont have a problem with its existence, I just chose to disregard it, just like the autopsy Doctors did.

Cliff they had nuclear weapons during this time as well, and just to slow you down, they did not use one of them either.

Ok. What do people tend to do when momentarily puzzled? Just a suggestion.

Fall could be lean for a better look? Hence the notion of spotting something and a suggestion is the symbolism of umbrella a la chamberlain (?) would not have been lost on JFK?

hmmmm...

John,

Concerning part 1,

I think we might find the answer to JFK's unusual movements in the Testimony of Roy Truly.

"And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. "

Seems logical to me.

Something else to consider is that if this alleged sniper in the Dal Tex fired a shot, using a suppressor, why is it that only JFK seems to react to this "being pelted by asphalt or metal"? Would no one else, given all the people in the area have noticed this?

Another issue here is of course a simple search of modern suppressors tells us that those involved with high power rifles still have an average of over 115dB emitted from the muzzle. If we then consider the possibility of shooting subsonic ammo we could knock another 15dB off of this for a total of 100dB. This is with TODAYS technology. I would think that in 63' this would have been far higher. A modern ambulance siren is in the range of 100-140dB. Perfectly audible when you consider that the target was very close to the rifle at this point.

Additionally a closer look at the window this shot allegedly comes from reveals that the surface of the window is unchanged and continuous. It is not open, and it is not broken out.

Looking at a negative image of this photo seems to confirm this.

Now onto the problems in Part 2

Frame 180

In this frame Harris contends that the President was not in fact smiling and waving, but grimacing, and in a few frames later shielding his face.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. JFK was smiling and waving just as we can plainly see,and just as the witnesses in close proximity testified.

I wonder why this testimony was not checked.

Harris also contends that Jackie is responding to the second shot at this time. Why would she react to a second suppressed shot, that did not strike the ground, when she clearly did not react to the first shot much earlier that did strike the ground? This makes no sense.

Following these gross errors Harris goes on to give a nonsensical expounding on the issues and problems with suppressors. There are many incorrect issues here. The first is Mr. Harris stating that suppressors cause misfires. This is absolutely false. A misfire is when a cartridge fails to fire or is delayed in firing, neither of which have anything to do with a suppressor. Additionally, I have used suppressors in the past, and assembling one to a rifle at the target area is common practice. Most manuals will tell you to be sure not to over tighten then and only tighten them "hand tight". This insures that there is no binding in the threads which attach the suppressor to the rifle itself.

A quick search online should yield such manuals and instructions. Another simple research blunder. Silencers have been used successfully since World War 1. Hiram Maxim being the man credited with their invention in 1902. In an interesting note, Maxim also invented the first mufflers for internal combustion engines using the same basic design.

Harris then goes on to offer the usual fair of testimony in support of his theory. Many of the witnesses claim the first shot sounded like a firecracker, giant firecracker, and other such comparisons. Harris is then led to believe this supports his idea. I wonder if Harris has ever heard a silenced weapon fire. It actually sounds far more like dull thud, than a crack.

I would be willing to bet that if we canvassed Police officers who investigate crime scenes the most common analogy made by those who are telling the events, is that the shots sounded like.....a firecracker. The thought also should not be lost on any of us that some of the witnesses did not think they sounded like shots until they realized they were shots. This is also not at all uncommon.

Harris then goes on to contend that the Sniper in the Dal-Tex fires yet again at 223, and strikes JFK in the back. Harris also contends that this shot is heard by "almost no one". Untrue. Many heard that shot, and many said that the first shot rang out as the President was smiling and waving, (not grimacing and shielding his face).

This shot is related by many to be the first blast they heard. Which creates yet another problem for Harris.

Are we to believe that the shooter in the Dal-Tex has now removed his silencer?

The time frame from 160 to 223 is 63 frames, or 3.44 seconds. Are we to believe that our sniper up there has managed to remove his silencer and reacquire the target in 3.44 seconds? I would suggest this is a bit much to ask of any of us to believe.

I only managed to make it through the first two parts of this epic saga. One can after all only withstand so much.

I find these first two episodes to be works of fiction. There are to many fundamental errors made in the basic research, which should have been and could have been easily avoided.

I will as time, and patience allows, review the other parts of this series and report back accordingly.

Mike

Cliff,

So many things in this life can be difficult.

One has to appreciate it when things are made easy.

You cited 3 witnesses in your support of a shot entering the front of the throat, and 3 witnesses in support of the President "grabbing his throat"

In another post just a few posts back you asserted the fact that Clint Hill was a trained observer. I for one could not agree more.

What I do not understand Cliff if how you happened to completely miss the fact, that all 3 of your witnesses tell us that this happened right after they heard a shot. And 2 of your witnesses state the shot was from behind.

In fact, Nellie even tells us that she turned to look BECAUSE of the noise from behind.

But I guess that part of the testimony does not matter much really.

They may have been confused what with all the poison darts flying around and stuff. I would imagine it was a very stressful time.

Not one of your witnesses supports the poison dart theory, which to most people is just nonsense.

All of your witnesses say the Presidents reactions were from a shot.

Poison dart indeed Cliff....Poison dart indeed.

If you would be so kind as to read the Final autopsy report and cite for me where they firmly state the ice bullet struck the throat, I would very much appreciate that.

Tom,

All good stuff!

Guess I need to come off some of those old MC rounds and get to shootin.

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.