Mike Williams

I suspect many are viewing it as a Monty Pythonesk form of ridiculous humor. I know I am. Mike

This leads to the obvious question. If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences, then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct? Braille tape measure. Its new from the makers of the Braille digital camera. Measure fine detail with a braille tape measure from an inch in front of an image? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I doubt that very much. Can she read braille? If so, why does she not get a braille keyboard or braille keyboard stickers? If she is smart enough to get a braille tape measure, then surely she would be smart enought to get, and use a braille keyboard or stickers. Duncan, I was joking. I should have said braille ping pong. Mike

This leads to the obvious question. If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences, then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct? Braille tape measure. Its new from the makers of the Braille digital camera.

"under boot camp stressors, he lost weight..." Jack, Do we know his weight going in and coming out of Basic Training? I ask because as a personal observation most people who are underweight gain weight, and most who are overweight lose weight. Was Oswald of rather slight build going in? Mike

Glenn, Let them keep the money, it is obviously needed, as the only people that would produce such things must be raising funds for the mentally challenged. Cheers my friend! Mike P.S. Hope you are well Jack, and keep nailing that hide to the fence Sir!

Mr Glen Sir, Is it not amazing how those that profess to be such astute researchers are often the ones that get side tracked by the most idiotic theories and ideas? It amazes me how that can happen to such highly educated people. Yet Alas there is salvation by way of those with education AND Common Sense. This is why I find Tink and so many others to be an invaluable resource to the community! Barb, yourself, tink, duncan, and so so many others are indispensable. I may not always agree with all of you on all counts, but you certainly are excellent in the research that you do, and are a wonderful resource for ACCURATE information. Best to you all, Mike

Professor Fetzer apparently has some need to argue with people... anyone... all the time. This post as well as this thread is a complete waste of time. Individuals try to insinuate some sanity into it without success. All of this prompts a rather simple question: What would happen if we all just ignored Fetzer and never replied to anything he says? Would he continue to talk to all of us although he never got a reply? Or would he switch to some other board where folks had unlimited time to deal with inconsequential matters of Fetzer's choosing? I don't know the answer but it might be a useful test. Josiah Thompson I think it a match made in heaven. Prof. Fetzer and JVB belong together. At least it is keeping them busy and out of the way of those doing real research. BK Bravo gents Bravo! 53 pages, and these appear to be the only two posts with any sanity. How in the world people ever believe some of the crap that comes from the ridiculous is beyond me.

Mike, do you see backspatter from the back of JFK's head in frame 313? No Sir, And for good reason. While the drops are much bigger, the "cloud" they create is far dense. I do however see the very fine mist creating a dense cloud that is textbook forward spatter. Mike

Martin, Absolutely unequivocally YES. Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD. Mike, As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate. Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions. Mr Burnham, Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted. This reverse trajectory initially was used to eliminate shooting positions. Such as. If the impact angle and the angle of entry were to represent 45* then we know the shooter has to be the same height above the target as the distance horizontally between the target and the shooter. This eliminates shooting positions. However in this instance the trajectory data is quite conclusive. But then again it has been said I am not very scientific Best to you SIR, Mike Nonetheless, are you not making statements of opinion and claiming them as fact? Why not post whatever diagrams or exhibits you are working from so that everyone can weigh and evaluate your thinking? Why not look up the method used to complete a reverse trajectory, and do the calculations? Youll need the information to "evaluate" anything I post anyhow. Mike

My comments in Green Mr. V, I stand corrected it was copper on the jacket. However the same point would stand as copper is not blood soluble. Frankly I would think the more likely is a conventional round striking the target and not exiting, although I would NEVER put anything past a cross dresser LOL. To answer you as to what kind of conventional round would do such a thing...a short round sure would. It would penetrate a short depth and stop. However then we have to address a missing bullet. How do you account for a subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1 if the round only went in a short depth? Why didn't the round show up on x-ray? Obviously because the round had fallen out, or otherwise removed and not accounted for. A secondary wound channel leaves an air pocket/void. I believe this was also discussed at autopsy and was abandon once communication came that advised of the anterior neck wound. What was discussed at the autopsy was the fact that there were no exit wounds and no bullets found. The prosectors asked the FBI men if such blood soluble rounds ("ice bullets") existed. FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab in order to investigate the lead given to him by Humes & Co. This event rightly deserves the title -- The First Investigation. The First Investigation lasted only so long as it took FBI SA Chuck Killion to inform Sibert that the Magic Bullet had been found in Dallas and was on the way to DC. At that point the JFK cover-up kicked into high gear. So one would have to ask is this the ONLY concept that was discussed at the autopsy? I think not. What do you think of what autopsy assistant Paul O'Connor told William Law?: "And another thing, we found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be travelling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we call in the military a 'short shot,' which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet - clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum." (In The Eye Of History, p41) No I certainly have not. However it is my understanding that one is paralyzed with this method in that they lose complete use of musculature. And your understanding is based on what, exactly? Unless you have access to all the paralytics tested by the Central Intelligence Agency in the early 60's you have no basis for an opinion one way or the other as to how a subject is paralyzed. So then the matter of common sense kicks in. How would one raise their arms if they were under the influence of a paralytic? How do you reconcile the fact that this alleged paralytic renders one immediately immobile and yet we clearly see JFK respond with physical movement. How many paralyzed people have you seen that are stark rigid rather than limp as having useless limbs? The muscles become flaccid and do not respond. This is what I am saying. If the President lost muscular control, then how could he hold himself up? How were the assassins to know he would not just slump forward out of their sight and ability. His back brace. As an example people who are in wheel chairs and fully paralyzed have a band around thier head to hold them upright in the chair, as they do not have the ability to hold themselves upright. 3 simultaneous shots to the head would have blown the single assassin theory out of the water. 1) Not when you're controlling the autopsy. All of Kennedy's wounds blow the single assassin theory out of the water, and yet here you are taking the single assassin theory as a matter of faith. 2) You are assuming that the killers wanted to set up a lone nut. This is a root fallacy. I and others argue that the killers intended to make the murder look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy. There is nothing in the wounds that indicate anything more than a single shooter. For the sake of pete the mere shape of the wounds point the rounds at the SN. Do a bit of reading on impact angles in relation to ballistic trajectory and you can do the math for yourself. In trying to set up a patsy would it ever do to have the target hit by so many rounds? Would you want it to look like a squad of the gestapos finest had opened up on him? Certainly not. If the squad could be tied to Fidel Castro? Most certainly! I assure you my friend a professional shooter would NOT be nervous. Training eliminates this. Since when have you or anyone else trained to shoot an American President? . I and many other like me, train to not even recognize the target as human. It is an inanimate object. It would not matter if it were a President a Hobo or Jesus himself. There is no emotional attachment to a human. This is not at all to say that there are not emotions to deal with after the fact. There certainly are, believe me. However this is not a factor at the time of engaging the target. The target is nothing more than an inanimate object. You do not concentrate on the target as such, but you concentrate on a small area of the target, and this is the spot you are going to place the projectile in. There is and has to be a mental separation. Every professional is going to assume a one shot kill, every time. Professionals simply do not pull the trigger if there is any question. This is ingrained from day one. This is the most difficult part of sniper training, teaching the young guys to be patient and wait until all the pieces of the puzzle align to make the shot. The reason you would use multiple shooters is to guarantee that SOMEONE had a shot. To assure that at least one shooter had a shot, not so that ALL shooters could open up like the OK corral. The professional snipers strength is not in their numbers it is in their discipline and ability. I appreciate your agreement that professionals would seek "insurance" and a "guarantee" and obviously that's what occurred in Dealey Plaza. Your kidding me right? What occurred in Dealey Plaza was a murder committed by someone with adequate shooting ability and one hell of a lot of luck. If this were as some have claimed a "professional hit" then they must be the most inadequate "professionals" I have ever encountered. 3 shots to kill one man less than 100 yards away is absurd for any professional. Then when the multiple shooter teams theory comes into play involving 5-6-7 or more shots, it then becomes plainly ridiculous. No way. The best insurance is one well aimed shot, and having shooters in multiple locations to assure someone had that perfect shot. And if John F. Kennedy leans over to chat with Nellie Connally as this "perfect shot" is squeezed off the shot misses, Kennedy ducks down, and the Williams gang goes to the gallows. I don't buy it. The fact that you dont buy it just lends exposure to your lack of understanding of the principles of expert marksmanship. Certainly. But not insurance by overwhelming fire power, that is not how it works. It is insurance of loaction, that at least one shooter has that one well aimed shot. Cliff, it is not that I am uninterested at all. It has nothing to do with what conforms to my conclusions. It has everything to do with what conforms to my training and ability to read operational situations. This shooting smacks of an novice. There is not one single bit of any of this that even remotely indicates a professional elimination. A group of moderately trained individuals possibly, if a second shooting local could be proven. But you can't come close to squaring your conclusions with the hard facts of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Your short shot scenario does not satisfy the physical facts of the case. JFK was struck in the throat by a round that did not exit and was not in the body. Until you deal with this fact, your training is betrayed by a conclusion formed prior to thorough investigation. Au contraire. My training is what tells me that a professional would never plot such a ridiculously complex engagement. If your theory is correct, do you have any idea how many things could have gone awry? The simplest plan is the most likely to succeed. Hope your doing well! Mike

Bill, That was fantastic! Nicely done SIR nicely done! Mike

John, This is something I would have to examine specific to that type of rifle and that type of round. There is nothing that can be done without actually firing that rifle with that ammo. You could and would get a variance even between rifles of the same type and manufacture. I would only add that given the length of the bullet and its sectional density it would stabilize very very quickly. I will see what I can find on this from an information stand point, but I believe what we will find is nothing that would change the imapcts at the ranges in question. Salute! Mike

Mr. V, I stand corrected it was copper on the jacket. However the same point would stand as copper is not blood soluble. Frankly I would think the more likely is a conventional round striking the target and not exiting, although I would NEVER put anything past a cross dresser LOL. To answer you as to what kind of conventional round would do such a thing...a short round sure would. It would penetrate a short depth and stop. However then we have to address a missing bullet. I believe this was also discussed at autopsy and was abandon once communication came that advised of the anterior neck wound. No I certainly have not. However it is my understanding that one is paralyzed with this method in that they lose complete use of musculature. The muscles become flaccid and do not respond. This is what I am saying. If the President lost muscular control, then how could he hold himself up? How were the assassins to know he would not just slump forward out of their sight and ability. As an example people who are in wheel chairs and fully paralyzed have a band around thier head to hold them upright in the chair, as they do not have the ability to hold themselves upright. 3 simultaneous shots to the head would have blown the single assassin theory out of the water. In trying to set up a patsy would it ever do to have the target hit by so many rounds? Would you want it to look like a squad of the gestapos finest had opened up on him? Certainly not. I assure you my friend a professional shooter would NOT be nervous. Training eliminates this. The target is nothing more than an inanimate object. You do not concentrate on the target as such, but you concentrate on a small area of the target, and this is the spot you are going to place the projectile in. There is and has to be a mental separation. Every professional is going to assume a one shot kill, every time. Professionals simply do not pull the trigger if there is any question. This is ingrained from day one. This is the most difficult part of sniper training, teaching the young guys to be patient and wait until all the pieces of the puzzle align to make the shot. The reason you would use multiple shooters is to guarantee that SOMEONE had a shot. To assure that at least one shooter had a shot, not so that ALL shooters could open up like the OK corral. The professional snipers strength is not in their numbers it is in their discipline and ability. No way. The best insurance is one well aimed shot, and having shooters in multiple locations to assure someone had that perfect shot. Certainly. But not insurance by overwhelming fire power, that is not how it works. It is insurance of loaction, that at least one shooter has that one well aimed shot. Cliff, it is not that I am uninterested at all. It has nothing to do with what conforms to my conclusions. It has everything to do with what conforms to my training and ability to read operational situations. This shooting smacks of an novice. There is not one single bit of any of this that even remotely indicates a professional elimination. A group of moderately trained individuals possibly, if a second shooting local could be proven. Mike

Mike, Wow! That appears to be proof of how unpredictable bullets really are! With regard to the x-rays, I'll just point out that a number of reserachers including Dr Randy Robertson (radiologist), Dr David Mantik (radiation oncologist)and Dr Joseph Riley (expert in neuroanatomy), have said that there are two seperate fragment trails in the head which appears to be evidence of two shots. I'm no medical or ballistics expert (as if that wasn't obvious!) so I won't attempt to argue their points. Cheers! Martin Martin, I am afraid you and I row the same boat there my friend. I am certainly no medical expert! I would fair far better with physical results than interpreting an xray that is for sure and certain! I guess I would have to read about that further in order to have an opinion, however based on the spatter and impacts seen on the z film I would have to hold with a single shot from the rear, unless of course something convincing comes along. Mike

Thank you Mike. I think you missed my other question. Why would a shot from the knoll have to produce damage to the left side? If bullets don't always follow a straight line after hitting bone (as I understand it bullets are quite easily deflected by substances much less dense than bone) is it not possible that a bullet struck the right side and exited the back of the head where dozens of witnesses placed the exit wound? Cheers! Martin Martin, I actually saw in instance where a man was shot in the forehead apparently twice with a .22. However there was no exit and there were no rounds in the head. Come to find out the bullet went in, followed the curvature of the inside of the skull and exited the front. There was one round fired and not 2! My point here is that projectiles can only be examined for wound ballistics based on what other evidence there may have been, simply because of their unpredictability! The answer is yes. It could happen, however with high power rifle rounds, this would be very very unlikely. Its a never say never thing my friend. I would ask you to consider this in consideration of probability. If the round entered the right side, all that energy would be sent towards the left, even if that projectile turned, this would cause a massive amount of left side damage, even if the projectile did not exit the left side. The sheer pressure alone would be enormous. To me the xrays clearly show a single round from the rear forward in the coning of lead particles. Some say that this could also represent a front to back shot, I find this unlikely, but mention it in fairness. There has never been anyone to the best of my knowledge who has claimed any type of side to side damage. It is always deemed front to back or back to front. I just can not fathom a shot from the right side replicating anything we see by way of film, testimony (medical) or xray. Mike

Mike, Thanks for sharing your insights. I'm still unclear on why a shot from the grassy knoll would have to produce damage to the left side of the head. Surely that's just assuming the bullet follows a straight path which, as you've said yourself, is not always the case. Do you have any sources or further info you can share on why you a feel a frangible round would all but remove the head? Martin Martin, Here is that overhead I promised you. Please disregard the dotted blue line coming in from the front, as that was added to represent a shooting position as requested by a fellow researcher, it is not represented in the color coding on the list. A frangible bullet will react in one of two ways. It will either A) remain in the target, generating a massive impact that we do not see the likes of anywhere on the film, or B ) transit the target and create epic damage which we do not see on the film. The amount of blood and tissue debris would be immense, and far more than what we see in 313 had it traversed, which it certainly would have. I doubt highly that the head itself would stop a projectile like that. It would defy physics. The head is filled with liquid. By molecular design the atoms of a liquid are very close together this allows for very little compression. Simply that pressure created has to go somewhere. Can you imagine the cranium being exposed to several thousand foot pounds of pressure? Mike

Morning Cliff, The issue I have with a paralytic, is simply how does one make one, and use lead? There is lead on the jacket. Certainly lead is not blood soluble. Of course the question also has to be raised, how would they know his physical reaction to a paralytic? When hit with a paralytic JFK could just as well have flopped to the floorboard of the car, having lost muscular control, and become unavailable as a target. The military principle involves more than overwhelming force, it involves the presentation of overwhelming force. In the instance of a covert operation, the objective is to have highly trained and very skilled persons who are an overwhelming force, but do not appear to be so. It becomes readily apparent our shooter was not included in the class above. Had they been it would have been a one shot situation. The argument that they had to fire three shots to frame the patsy does not hold logic. They well could have framed the patsy with one shot. Fire one round hide rifle, leave shell casing. Exact same scenario as many theorize, but with only one casing rather than 3. The theory of firing paralytics, and additional unneeded shots as part of a base plan is against all theory and tactics. The more facets you have the higher percentage of risk of failure. The optimum plan for an operation like this would call for an elevated shooter behind the location, and a street level shooter in front of the location (insurance). I would speculate that this insurance would not be needed as these are very simple shots. I hold now as I always have that this was quite the slipshod operation. It smacks of being poorly planned and impulsive. It smacks of being carried out by someone with moderate ability, be it physica ability (their own), or material ability(their weapon). Case in point. If setting up a patsy, why hide the rifle, and leave the casings in plain view. I might point out the casings were found first, and further exhaustive search lead to the rifle on the same floor. Why not leave the rifle in plain view as well? From the lone assassin point of view. Why not take the extra second to police up the brass, and hide it with the rifle? This would certainly kept the search going for much longer. It would have prolonged the conclusion that someone was missing from the TSBD and the identity of that person. This screams ill thought amateur. Hope your day is great! Mike

Mr Bill Sir, I would suggest this is not the case. I believe the shooter fired all three and the fact that he needed three shots, and left the rifle sticking out the window, and left evidence behind, etc, etc, just lends to the point that he is not a professional. Also if we look at the shell pattern on the floor it indicates one shot, and then two more as teh vehicle went further down the street. I know Fritz was alleged to have picked up the shells, I just do not know if I buy into that. Mike

Holland says the 4th shot was much louder than the 3rd shot. Bill Newman's reaction is to the loudest shot. Newman sees and describes the 313 shot, but his reaction in Nix indicates a response to the later shot. chris Chris, I tend to believe that the location of Z-313 (physically marked on the street) is erroneous. I further believe that the Z-film frames are less than reliable [read:INACCURATE] when used as a baseline to determine...ummmm--just about anything! It is not an accurate "time clock" for starters, for numerous reasons. Unfortunately, it is "just close enough" to occupy our attention in an attempt to discover the truth, only to disappoint in the end. However, close scrutiny reveals little about reality, beyond the fact that the perpetrators were very thorough. The alteration of the Zapruder film is probably the single most effective element of the ongoing cover up [obstruction of justice] in the assassination of John F Kennedy. It sends even sincere researchers down the wrong path... Tom Wilson established that the head shot was approximately across from the knoll steps. Jack Jack that would put the spot just a bit east of the x on the road correct? I thought I saw Gary mack in a video standing on the correct spot, and saying the X was incorrect. Mike

John, I think highly of Bill, but would have to tell you in this instance to stick by your guns. I believe you maybe correct. The distance a bullet can travel in 1 z frame at 2165fps is 118 feet. In one frame he is upright the next is the forward movement, and gore. Let me do some figuring and see where we are with this. It is possible that you are seeing the in shoot before the transfer of energy. Mike

Mike, Why do you feel there would have to be left-side damage? Some researchers, like pathologist Cyril Wecht and marine sniper Craig Roberts, have postulated some type of fragmenting or exploding bullet was fired from the knoll and struck the right side of the head. Would you agree that this was a possibility? I'd say there is a secondary movement after the impact at z312. At z328, it appears to me that Kennedy is driven quite suddenly forward. Dr Michael Kurtz meaured the movement as "over three feet" in "one-sixth of a second." The acoustics evidence places a shot from the north end of Elm St at z328 so the film and dictabelt appear to corroborate each other. You said above that you believed the first shot was fired around z197. But the view from the TSBD was blocked by the oak tree at that point so how can that be? I find it hard to believe that someone fired through the tree and hit his mark. Cheers! Martin BTW there are apparently fragments in the left side on the x-rays. Martin, Because shooting from the knoll puts the shot directly into the right side of JFK's head. I will see If I can find my over head of this from my buddy Dons map. I would absolutely not agree with that. I would further state that I would seriously wonder about the motives of a Sniper who said these shots were difficult. Its ridiculous. A fragmenting high power rifle round would have all but removed the head. (most sorry for the graphic nature, but we are talking about a shooting). The kinetic energy transfer would be massive, additionally it would perforate and come out in a huge epic mess. All this fragmenting bullet garbage is just that....nonsense. The most violent shot we see is 313, and that by all apperances looks just like an FMJ round. A fragmenting round would be 3-5 times more apparent, and graphic. Yes I have read this before about the movement at 328, the problem is a transiting shot has no where near that much energy. It goes back to the .1-.3% of impact energy absorbed. Which as I showed before is a small amount. It would take far more than 10 ft lbs to toss 80-90 lbs 3 feet. Oh yes the magic limb ricochet tree! I feel that I can provide evidence to prove that a shot may have been available much earlier than 210. I also, in looking at the WC photos have no issue believing a shooter could track a target nearly the whole way through the trees. And remember at the time of the shooting, the wind was out of the due west at about 13 mph......what does that do to the limb at the top of a tree? Martin I hope your day in wet and windy England was top notch! Mike

Good afternoon from wet and windy England! I don't agree that a second shot to the head - fired from the knoll - can be ruled out. The fact is, the medical evidence as it stands is confusing, contradictory and ultimately inconclusive. The brain is missing and so are the photos the autopsists said were taken showing the back of the head with the scalp reflected. To draw a firm conclusion we need all of the available evidence and we need to believe we can trust the evidence we have. Ask yourself this: Why is it that the autopsy surgeons were unable to locate the entry wound in the autopsy photos or x-rays when shown them by the HSCA? Why do the x-rays show no damage to the back of the head when the autopsy report and literally dozens of witnesses including doctors, nurses, FBI agents, Police officers, Secret Service agents and even a professor of neurosurgery(!) said it was there? Why is it that the three independent forensic experts asked to review the medical evidence for the ARRB were unanimous in concluding that the autopsy x-rays show there to be NO BULLET HOLE in the back of the head at all? (Even the HSCA's location for the entry wound was based on the appearance of a fragment trail and not on a through and through hole) Autopsy surgeon Dr Boswell actually confirmed to the HSCA and the ARRB that there was bone missing in the back of the head! According to Boswell, they first found a portion of an entry hole on the back of the skull above which was a huge 17cm defect. Only when a bone fragment from the back of the head was brought into the autopsy room were they able to complete the circumference of the entry wound: “There was a shelf and then a little hole came up on the side and then one of the smaller of the two fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound.” (7HSCA260) You can see Boswell's drawing of the wound here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...md209_0001a.htm Dr Boswell's description of the skull is in serious conflict with both the autopsy photos and x-rays. How can that be if the medical record is complete, conclusive and trustworthy? Make no mistake, Mike, there is something seriously wrong with the medical evidence in this case All of that aside, can we really make a determination on what type of head wound we'd expect from a grassy knoll shot if we don't know what type of ammunition was used? Cheers! Martin Martin, The one consistency is no left side head damage. Which certainly would have occurred from the GK, with anything of any medium to high velocity. We see no second impact movement, but more telling we see no secondary spatter. All three of these are required by physics to prove a second shot. I agree the medical evidence is a friggin mess! I have found several inconsistencies just this morning on working on the trajectory for shot 1. To wit. They say the wound was 7mmx4mm with a 45 to 60 degree decline through the body. This defies any and all geometric and physical possibility. I believe what I am working on will give evidence that JFK is hit before 223 224, and significantly so. I suspect that the position the Secret Service has held for years is accurate. JFK 1st shot JBC 2nd JFK 3rd Mike

So given Martins assessment of the wounds. In the photo I posted earlier, the lower wound seems to be more consistent in location and size does it not? Am I missing something here? Why would they be holding the ruler like that to measure the higher wound? That does not make sense to me. I could use some help here guys.

Mike, How would you correlate three shots from the sixth floor to the visual evidence of the Zapruder film? i.e. what z frames would you place the shots at? I should state for the record that I firmly believe there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll and that the acoustics evidence will eventually be recognised as hard evidence of this. Cheers! Martin Martin, Good morning my friend! I believe the impacts are at 197, to the back of JFK(penetrating not perforating), the mid 230's for JBC (obviously perforating), and 312 JFK (perforating). I am not of the opinion that lack of evidence is conclusive. What I mean by this is simply that just because no one has been able to prove beyond doubt the existence of a grassy knoll shooter, that they do not exist. I find this to be narrow and illogical thinking. However if there was a GK shooter they certainly missed, and this can be proven by physics and trajectory. There is no shooting position on the Knoll that would not include left side head damage. Further if they did miss they had to miss behind the target. Had they missed ahead of the target it would have meant wounding Mrs. Kennedy. I have been recently doing much work on the first shot, and am convinced it was at 197 (impact with an earlier trigger pull), I have not narrowed the JBC wound yet (simply have not looked that close yet), and 312 needs little analysis to determine a hit. The article I am writing includes bullet flight times as well as reaction times allowed for the speed of the sounds the witnesses heard. It is a pretty large undertaking, but I keep plugging away. This is the article I have been referring to when I say I am working on something. Hope you have a good day! Mike

Mike, I deeply respect your expertise in this area and I'd be the last person to challenge you generally on this subject. However, consider this: the plotters of the assassination could not be 100% sure that the shooters -- who were committing high treason and murder and had never shot at an American President -- would not be just a bit nervous. If JFK were merely winged on the first shot he might hit the floor. They could not discount this contingency 100%. I submit they took no chances. They had access to the most modern technology -- blood soluble paralytics and toxins. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt There is evidence that a shooter on the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex Building fired a blood soluble round. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl= There were few misses in the JFK assassination, imo. The first shot likely struck him in the throat with a blood soluble paralytic -- the Zapruder film shows him seizing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds circa Z190 to Z230. This is consistent with the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics. Immediately after the autopsy the prosectors huddled together and arrived at a "general feeling" that JFK was struck with blood souble rounds. 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) The second shot was a blood soluble toxin fired from the Dal-Tex (or so I'd speculate). It was a kill shot, just to the right of midline about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. The head shots came from a triangulation of fire (or so I'd speculate). They didn't miss. 3 hits. The head wound evidence is so conflicted and tainted it doesn't get you anywhere trying to figure it out. And this is exactly what happened. The first shot came circa Z190 fired from Black Dog Man. How do we know? Because Rosemary Willis and the Willis 5 photograph strongly indicate as much. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo (below) Black Dog Man had "near the region of his hands...'a very distinct straight-line feature.'" According to Rosemary Willis Black Dog Man was a "conspicuous" person who happened to "disappear the next instant." In the Zapruder film we can see at what point "the next instant" occurred: at Z214-17 Rosemary does a rapid head-snap in the direction of Black Dog Man. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394 Black Dog Man took one shot and was out of there in less then a second. The damage to JFK's neck as shown in the neck x-ray is also consistent with the conclusion that he was struck with a blood soluble paralytic in the throat. The round nicked his trachea, bruised the tip of his lung, left a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying C7 and T1. Minor soft tissue damage, no exit, no round recovered. Same with the back wound: shallow, no exit, no round recovered. The simplest explanation carries the day -- the autopsists got it right the night of the autopsy: Two wounds. No exits. No rounds recovered. Blood solubles. "A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!" On the contrary, good sir! If setting up patsies were one's profession and one wanted to establish shots from the patsy's "sniper's nest" then wouldn't one have someone hold the rifle out the window and fire 3 rounds into the blank spaces in Dealey Plaza just to establish the official "shooter" location? None of the 3 shots fired from the "Oswald sniper nest" hit anything, imo, other than perhaps Tague. Cliff, Having just finished reading much of the autopsy info. The only reason blood solubles were mentioned was because they were unable to locate an exit for the back wound. At the time this was speculated they did not even realize there as a throat wound. The there was "communication" with Parkland and information led to them finding out about the throat wound. It was then that they determined this could be the exit. (however they were never able to probe it, which is a moronic blunder to the SBT). I do not recall any time them discussing blood soluble rounds in relation to both wounds. So the question begs to answer. Why go through all the paralytic shooting, etc etc. Why take a chance on one of "those shooters" missing and messing the whole thing up? Could they not have just as easily framed the patsy with one well aimed shot? Of course they could. Why not just hire a pro, make a single shot kill, and frame the patsy accordingly? Would Oswald have looked less guilty because he only made a single head shot? Of course not. Why add so many dimensions, that all run the risk of compromising the whole operation? The 6th floor of the TSBD can be proven to be the location of the shots. This is a mathematical certainty. There is a little saying in the military KISS Keep it simple stupid. Please do not take this as me calling you stupid. This is not how it is meant at all Sir. I am simply saying that while planning anything the simplest plan is often the one that has the most chance of success. I would think the lead on the clothing would be a huge indication that the blood soluble rounds theory is lost. I enjoy talking to you Cliff, and look forward to more of your thoughts! Best to you Sir! Mike