Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:
Questions:
1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.
2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.
3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?
4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?
Any help is much appreciated.
My best to you all,
Mike
If it counts for anything!
#1 is the bullet entrance hole, as confirmed by the HSCA questioning of the Autopsy Surgeons, as well as my personal conversations with Dr. Boswell.
In fact, if one will review much of the HSCA Medical Panel works, they will find that they even reproduced "enlargement" photo's of this entry wound for continued study.
Might want to "dig" into the "Abrasion Collar" subject matter related to this wound, as it will also provide an "essential element of information".
Back Entry Wound: 4mm X 7mm in dimension with relatively clean-cut edges. (exactly identical to what is created with a "wadcutter" round.
CE#399: Flat base deformed to 4mm X 7mm in dimension.
"Punch-type" wound of entry through clothing worn by JFK, with considerable fabric from his coat and shirt carried down into the wound. (Which happens to be one of those things like the Northern Lights, in that a normal bullet entry does not carry fabric down into the wound of entry).
The principal question remaining: "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader"?
As, one can rest assured that if one gives a fifth grader the back entry wound dimension and the deformed base to CE399 dimension, then he/she would easily be capable of determination as to which end of CE399 struck first.
Tom
P.S. Don't forget to check into that "abrasion collar", as it also will shed considerable light and knowledge on the subject matter.
Tom,
I am reading you 4x4 my friend and I certainly will!
Thanks Tom,
Mike
-
Sir,
I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process.
Can you define "very quick" more precisely? Do you think it would take you less than 1 second or more than 1 second?
Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds.
I was under the impression that he did not duplicate the conditions of duress that the shooter would have been under, including, the use of a tripod. I believe that is correct.
There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven.Not if one of the shooters were in front.
I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target.Where I come from we tend to rely on doctors to determine a great deal. No disrespect intended, but IMHO you have a lot of catching up to do.
Best,Mike
GO_SECURE
monk
Mr. Burnham,
Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last few years, then the basic principles of ballistics still apply.
I believe I already defined Quick in proving Frazier fired 3 very well aimed shots in 6 seconds. That sounds like an average of 3 seconds for the last two shots which included aiming and cycling the bolt. I would say that is pretty quick considering your theory that it takes 2.3 seconds to cycle the bolt without aiming (which I do not agree with). There are several videos that bear this out.
Frazier used no tripod in the testing of the rifle at the ranges. I also believe you assume duress, it is impossible to know the state of mind of the shooter.
There is no evidence whatsoever of a shooter from the front. Kinetic energy transfer indicates a rear shooter, as does Blood Spatter, inter-cranial fragment disbursement.
You do realize that the "violent backward motion" can not possibly be attributed directly to a bullet.
No disrespect taken Sir, not at all, and none intended when I say that I do not believe I need to catch up, I simply believe that many do not understand the ballistics and physics involved in a shooting event.
Where I come from an opinion is an opinion, until it is proven, it then becomes fact. From a ballistic stand point the fact now stands at no frontal shooter.
Do you have any other evidence other than the opinion of a doctor? Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir.
My best to you,
Mike
Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir.
Mike!
Do you also engage in expanded searches for a Unicorn and/or the Golden Fleece?
Tom,
Only to prove that they don't exist! But WE both knew that was coming!
-
Mr.Hynonen,
Pleasure to see you again Sir.
FMJ rounds by design do not fragment in tissue. This was mandated by the Geneva Convention. It was considered inhumane in a time of war. (Go figure). The 6.5mm MC round is a well known (and well liked in Europe), for its exceptional stability. They have a sectional density and ballistic coefficient that makes them deep penetrating, and very stable. Having said that I am of course surprised that this projectile would fragment inside the head. This is contrary to all that we know about the Carcano round. While it is not surprising that the projectile shed fragments from its open end, one would seriously have to consider that the projectile hit something very hard upon exit, and this is what caused it to shatter. Now in the case of the CE399 bullet, I have other issued, namely its lack of deformity. I would certainly not have expected it to fragment on its way through both men (alleged), however, I would certainly expect to see some deformity of the projectile.
The one true anomaly I see is the lack of deformity of the CE399 projectile. I firmly believe that the projectile exiting the head, struck the window chrome and shattered.
I hope this helped and answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Mike, Dr. Baden of the HSCA medical panel shared your opinion that the bullet must have shattered upon hitting the windshield strut, as it would be unlikely to shatter in skull. This was due in part to the large fractures at the supposed exit, which would be unlikely should the bullet really have exited in pieces. The problem with this is that this doesn't fit the other evidence. There were two bullet fragments found in the front section of the car, and two impacts--one on the windshield strut, and one on the windshield itself, noted. One of these fragments was the nose of the bullet, the other was the base. Roughly half the bullet was missing...from the middle. This suggests the recovered fragments exited separately. In addition, a cross-section of this missing middle--or slice--is supposedly visible on the x-rays between the tables of the skull on the far back of the head. This, then, would suggest the bullet broke up upon impact with the back of the head.
Or do you think, as Baden, it makes sense for a 6.5 mm slice to rub off the back of a bullet upon impact with a human skull?
Mr. Speer,
I would think that Baden might just be onto something here. I have always held that it is possible for fragments to be left in the head from the rear of the bullet. It would not seem that the wounds are consistent with a projectile fragmenting in the head. This would he highly unlikely with this type of round. I have also further thought that this projectile shattered impacting the chrome. I believe it is very possible that once shattering the crack in the glass was caused by a fragment of that. The inside of the glass had lead, not copper, as I recall. I believe it is very possible that a fragment came off that projectile once it impacted the chrome and cracked the glass.
Hop you are having a great day!
Mike
-
Pat!
How fantastic to see you again!
I enjoyed the reading, and it sounds accurate to me. The information is very good (hell I used to teach most of that).
However this was hardly a "sniping" situation. The maximum range was under 100 yards. In the Marines Oswald would have qualified at 200 300 and 500 meters with open sights.
To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher
)It is not the distance that makes these shots hard. Nor is it the movement of the target, as that would make little difference in a target moving away and slightly to the right. The difficulty as I see it is simply in the timing we try to cram it into. 3 seconds to make a well aimed shot is possible and has been proven. So I see no issue whatsoever that would conclude me to believe that Oswald, or anyone else with just a modicum of training, could make these shots.
Remember the target only has to be led 1.31 feet and hold at .05" low. With the target moving away even if you led to far forward, the round would just strike a bit low. (yep as in the back)
I have to tell you Pat I LOVE your site and read it often, however I have to disagree with ya on this one. I think Oswald surely had the ability to make these shots.
I also noticed you mentioned Massad Ayoob. He is top shelf. I took a handgun course offered by him at one time, and also took the pr-24 course as well. We worked some simulation drills using paint markers (they look just like m9's) and I went 5 and 5 with him. He told me that was the best anyone had ever done against him. ( I bet he says that to all the boys:))
FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all, and I am not positive he used the scope!
My very best to you Pat and it is a pleasure to see you again Sir,
Mike
To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher
)It is impossible to win in argument with an ignorant man!
(William G. McAdoo)
FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all,
Neither did the U.S. Secret Service!
and,
Neither did the FBI!
and
(forwhatever it is (or is not) worth, neither did Tom Purvis
and I am not positive he used the scope!
One thing can be readily established. There was insufficient time between the Second Shot/aka Z313 and the Third Shot/aka 30-feet farther down the road, for full operation of the weapon and target acquisition utilizing the scope.
If, and when, one comes to fully recognize the true shot sequence and exactly when the Third/Last/Final shot was fired and struck JFK.
Think "Snapshot"!
Tom,
By god it is fantastic to see you again! I hope you have been well.
While I am not sure we agree on the last shot, we do agree on much.
I would hope you were not referring to me in the ignorant man comment. There may be many things I am but ignorant is not one of them. You and I both know these shots were not difficult and that it is only the time restraint that they try to pack them into that makes it so. My analogy to the boy was simply based on the difficulty of the shots without time constraints. I should think you as a 9 year old could have done this lol.
At any rate it sure is good to hear from you and if you are ever down Florida way, my door is always open!
Best to you Sir,
Mike
-
I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:
Questions:
1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.
2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.
3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?
4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?
Any help is much appreciated.
My best to you all,
Mike
A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.
Pat,
Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.
Best to you my friend,
Mike
-
You might want to read "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you can download via google. This article, which I presented at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed journal, refutes the "magic bullet" theory by establishing the location of that wound.I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:
Questions:
1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.
2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.
3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?
4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?
Any help is much appreciated.
My best to you all,
Mike
Mr. Fetzer,
I will certainly give it a look over, and appreciate your reply.
Best,
Mike
-
I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:
Questions:
1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.
2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.
3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?
4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?
Any help is much appreciated.
My best to you all,
Mike
-
Mike, whether I agree with all your points, or not, it is nice to have a ballistics expert to bounce opinions off.
Mr. Turner,
Pleasure to see you again!
I think there are issues regarding ballistics that everyone struggles with, it is perhaps one of the least understood aspects of the assassination. I find that many times those who have issues with the ballistics simply do not understand it, and have long held beliefs that are hard to let go of.
The back and to the left violent movement is one of these. Bullets simply do not move bodies like that. (assuming of course that said projectile was not fired from a howitzer
)If there is ever anything that I can offer please feel free to fire away (no pun intended). I am as always at your service.
Best to you Sir and I hope you have been well,
Mike
-
Greg,
Fascinating. Leaving this "absurdity", in order to rush in to join Fetzer/Judyth instead?
Mike,
I can only say that I am too, glad you're stickin' around.
Thanks.
Mr. Viklund,
My pleasure Sir.
Yes I was not lost on his departing this conversation because of its absurdity to return to the Fetzer/Judyth thread. Now that is funny!
At any rate as I said before I consider myself in good company!
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Sgt Mikey, is that you? Any more ego lifting shooting escapades? LMFAO! Only YOU could draw me back here, son. Only YOU! Now this thread is a circus..... carry on! Where is Bill Miller when you need him.
Mr. Healy,
I am uncertain what you mean by "ego" lifting shooting escapades, but then again, this is not surprising. The implication that you and I have some sort of genetic attachment is disconcerting to me to say the least.
As for this thread, I see no circus here. I see perhaps a few facts that seem to leave some with an untenable position that makes them feel less than comfortable, which is understandable.
As for Mr. Miller, I wish he would drop in, as I have always been fond of Bill, and enjoy talking about the issues with him. I wish that I could say the same for you. While I have nothing against you personally, I find you seldom discuss assassination issues and basically just waste forum bandwidth with needless garble. If you have something you wish to address by all means speak up. If not then I wish you well and be on your way.
Best to you David,
Mike
-
Hi,
You seem to be experienced with rifles, bullets and shooting. Thanks for your replies.
What is your opinion of a fragmenting FMJ round? From what I understand, and have looked into this, it seems like FMJ rounds do not fragment upon impact. Over the internet I took part in a discussion on rifles, Carcanos more particularly. Most who replied on the forum denied there was anything fishy about Oswald and the Kennedy assassination, nor the assumed weapon&ballsitics as reported by the WC.
However, a few members replied to me via private messages, they didn't seem to want to get into the discussion publicly.
Those who replied privately had actually hunted with Carcano's, some had used FMJ rounds for hunting. Those who replied to me indicated that in their expericence FMJ rounds always went right through the deer. They had never experienced a fragmenting FMJ round, nor any wounds that had only partially penetrated the deer.
Here's one set of opinions found on the net:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g...ead_wounds.html
Any thoughts regarding this are appreciated. Thanks.
Regards,
Antti
Mr. Kelly,Just a note to say thank you for this information. This has proved to be some of the most interesting reading I have found here in quite sometime.
Again, thank you Sir.
Mike
Hey Mike,
I'm glad someone is finding all this as interesting as I do.
And thanks for being a vet.
I have a few questions for you, with your background.
Having reviewed the case now, can you tell me in your opinion:
1) Did the Sixth floor sniper use the Manlicher Carcano or another rifle?
2) If the MC was used, did the shooter use the scope or not?
3) If the MC was used, did the shooter use the strap for support and accuracy?
4) As seen in the Zapruder film, does the head shot originate from the front or the rear?
Thank you,
BK
Mr. Kelly,
No thanks needed Sir.
To answer a your questions:
1) I believe the 6th floor shooter used the MC rifle. The wounds would seem to be consistent with the this type of rifle, but more importantly the impact angles seem to indicate strongly that the shots were fired from that window.
2) To be quite frank here, I do not know. I have an MC with a cantilever mount, and in my opinion it could be used either way. However with the longest shot being a mere 100 yards, a scope would not be needed at all.
3) Again there really is no way to know. I would think as the shots were not at any great range that "saddling" or "snapping in" would not be needed.
4) The head shot without fail comes from the rear. For one, projectiles that perforate do not transfer the kind of energy it requires to "slam" a human body back like we see in the famous "back and to the left". A more honest representation is the sight forward head movement we initially see. It is relatively simple to calculate, but generally the impact of a transiting projectile is no more than .1%-.3% of the energy the projectile has at time of impact.
Another indication of a rear shot is that upon entry the wound will emit back spatter. This is generally large drops of blood traveling at moderate speed, Upon exit things change. We then see forward spatter, which is a very dense cloud of almost mist like droplets in very high speed.
To offer an example take a straw and fill 2 inches of it with ketchup. Then simply blow out the ketchup. That is back spatter.
Next fill a spray bottle with water and red food color, set it to mist rather than stream, and spray it a few times. The dense cloud of mist hangs in the air and is compromised of small droplets. This is forward spatter.
I think this is exactly what we see in the Z film.
I hope that I have at least given my opinion satisfactorily to your questions. If not, I am at your service.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Mr.Hynonen,
Pleasure to see you again Sir.
FMJ rounds by design do not fragment in tissue. This was mandated by the Geneva Convention. It was considered inhumane in a time of war. (Go figure). The 6.5mm MC round is a well known (and well liked in Europe), for its exceptional stability. They have a sectional density and ballistic coefficient that makes them deep penetrating, and very stable. Having said that I am of course surprised that this projectile would fragment inside the head. This is contrary to all that we know about the Carcano round. While it is not surprising that the projectile shed fragments from its open end, one would seriously have to consider that the projectile hit something very hard upon exit, and this is what caused it to shatter. Now in the case of the CE399 bullet, I have other issued, namely its lack of deformity. I would certainly not have expected it to fragment on its way through both men (alleged), however, I would certainly expect to see some deformity of the projectile.
The one true anomaly I see is the lack of deformity of the CE399 projectile. I firmly believe that the projectile exiting the head, struck the window chrome and shattered.
I hope this helped and answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
-
Pat!
How fantastic to see you again!
I enjoyed the reading, and it sounds accurate to me. The information is very good (hell I used to teach most of that).
However this was hardly a "sniping" situation. The maximum range was under 100 yards. In the Marines Oswald would have qualified at 200 300 and 500 meters with open sights.
To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher
)It is not the distance that makes these shots hard. Nor is it the movement of the target, as that would make little difference in a target moving away and slightly to the right. The difficulty as I see it is simply in the timing we try to cram it into. 3 seconds to make a well aimed shot is possible and has been proven. So I see no issue whatsoever that would conclude me to believe that Oswald, or anyone else with just a modicum of training, could make these shots.
Remember the target only has to be led 1.31 feet and hold at .05" low. With the target moving away even if you led to far forward, the round would just strike a bit low. (yep as in the back)
I have to tell you Pat I LOVE your site and read it often, however I have to disagree with ya on this one. I think Oswald surely had the ability to make these shots.
I also noticed you mentioned Massad Ayoob. He is top shelf. I took a handgun course offered by him at one time, and also took the pr-24 course as well. We worked some simulation drills using paint markers (they look just like m9's) and I went 5 and 5 with him. He told me that was the best anyone had ever done against him. ( I bet he says that to all the boys:))
FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all, and I am not positive he used the scope!
My very best to you Pat and it is a pleasure to see you again Sir,
Mike
-
Best to you too Mike.
A slowly carefully considered response is what I hope for. Take all the time needed.
I was hoping we'd get to wound ballistics later. As you, with the example of the thorax-shin, point out wound ballistics is in a category of its own. (I've read of a burglary account where the burglar murders the witnesses by shootong them in the back of the head and in one instance a victim survived by the bullet scribing a path between the brain and skull and exiting from the forehead.)
Meanwhile, be well.
Mr. Dolva,
I have heard of similar myself, but personally witnessed the thorax shin wound.
What would help me greatly is if you could tell me exactly what you hope to learn from the work I am doing. This would better aid me in calculating and giving you what you need information wise.
Salute,
Mike
-
Greg,
Fascinating. Leaving this "absurdity", in order to rush in to join Fetzer/Judyth instead?
Mike,
I can only say that I am too, glad you're stickin' around.
Thanks.
Mr. Viklund,
My pleasure Sir.
Yes I was not lost on his departing this conversation because of its absurdity to return to the Fetzer/Judyth thread. Now that is funny!
At any rate as I said before I consider myself in good company!
Best to you Sir,
Mike
-
The way I see it is that the principles of ballistics can be applied to any scenario so there's not really a need to line up on a side on the medical issue.
Mike, I trust you will continue to deal with the ballistics of the MC, the constraints the shooter faced (in this instance from the snipers nest), all the factors to consider, and an evaluation of whether someone with Lee Oswalds grading could reasonably expect success.
Mr. Dolva,
Yes Sir I certainly will. Per our earlier conversation I am already working on the graphics and sizing of the rifle and window. Should have this little project ready for you sometime tomorrow. I am off work and have the honey do list to attend to lol.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
-
I hadn't seen Mike Williams post for a while. I thnk we had these kinds of debates a few years ago. Monk made the points I would have, and I certainly couldn't have said it any better.
It's hard to take someone seriously who says there is no evidence of a shot from the front. The majority of witnesses identified shots coming from the general knoll area, film footage shows nearly all crowd (including police) attention was to that area in the aftermath of the shooting, JFK's head is propelled violently backwards following the head shot, a piece of skull bone from the back of his head was later found in the grass, motorcycle office Hargis was splattered with blood and brain matter (riding to the rear of the limousine), every doctor and nurse who examined the president at Parkland reported a huge hole in the back of his head, the initial description (and obviously the most relevant one) of the throat wound by Dr. Perry indicated it was one of entrance, etc.
I could go on and on, but like Monk, it's tiresome to go over this same debate.
Mr Jefferies,
Yes it has been some time. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the xrays are forged? Do you believe the left side of the head was damaged?
Do you realize that at 12 mph a 1/2 ounce piece of matter would strike with over 2 lbs of force? I would think the cycles rode through the debris field considering the Motorcade was moving at about 11 feet per second.
I already addressed the impossibility of the backward movement from a projectile in another post in this thread.
I prefer to let the science tell me what happened and look for witnesses to corroborate that.
I find it difficult to take anyone serious that claims to have proof of a shot from the front. If something significant surfaces please let me know.
Mr. Jefferies it is a pleasure to see you again, we do not always agree but I do enjoy our exchanges.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
-
The pipes.
Mr. White,
Thank you for that photo, that is one I did not have.
I believe at one time we got off on the wrong foot. This was a few years ago, and I do not even suspect you remember. I do offer my apologies Sir, there was more to it than met the eye. I hope you can accept that as I look forward to discussing issues with you, and learning from your wealth of information.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Mike,
Having seen the photo of the window from the sniper's position, pipes and all, we can assume that the gunman was in a kneeling position, similar to the photo of Oswald in the USMC kneeling at the end of a line of marines at rifle practice.
Would everyone agree to that assumption?
And if that is true, does that have an effect on the sniper's precision?
What would be the cause of the slight pause in the shooting between the first and second shots?
And while we can't predict what a projectile will do after it hits something, what would cause two bullets of the same type, presumably from the same batch - to have such a radically different result - the magic bullet, which hit Connally's bones and fractured them, yet stayed in pristine condition, and the head bullet, that fractured into a dozen or more pieces? Or were they different types of bullets?
And Mike, Thanks for sticking around,
BK
Mr. Kelly,
I do believe that the kneeling position was by and large the only option, unless sitting on the floor. That sill is awful close to the floor, even sitting on a box would seem to be an awkward shooting position.
The kneeling position is quite stable, especially if one is resting his rifle on the sill or a box. However given the short distance of the shots I would say that neither is required.
The pause, well Sir it is my honest opinion that CE543 is our answer. It is very obviously dented from a short cycle condition. This is when we fire a round, and pull the bolt back but not fully, the shell extracts but does not eject. When we then go to run the bolt forward, since there is no longer a tapered projectile to guide the round up the ramp and into the chamber, the front of the casing hits the chamber bevel and dents it. I have seen this countless times. All that is required to correct this condition is to pull the bolt rearward again and insure the shell ejects. The simply slide the bolt forward with a fresh round and keep firing.
Sir, in regard to the difference in results from the rounds. I honestly have to tell you I do not know. I am not convinced in the SBT at all, and find it very difficult to believe that bullet broke bone and came out near pristine. I just do not buy that.
As for sticking around, it is most certainly my pleasure, I consider myself in good company!
Best Sir,
Mike
-
Thanks Jack. Yeah, AJ Smith (Chargers' GM) has a reputation of acquiring great talent--and then growing weary of them prematurely. We can add Junior Seau to the list of super stars he has released too early, since Junior got his first Super Bowl ring with the Patriots after leaving San Diego. Go figure!
Anyway, I have to depart the absurdity of this thread -- forever. I'm paranoid I might get some of it on me, like a rash that won't wash off...
GO_SECURE
monk
Mike...Monk is a policeman. He knows firearms.Jack
Well, that's not exactly correct, Jack--but you didn't know. Since 2006, I now have a career in Real Estate with my wife.
GO_SECURE
monk
Glad to get that news. But you WERE a policeman.
Too bad about the Chargers selling off LaDanien. He has a few good years left,
just like Drew Brees, who after being sold off by the Chargers only went on
to win the Super Bowl! Maybe LT can do the same for New York!
Best to you and wife in your new career!
Jack
Mr. Burnham,
I figured that was coming. I would depart as well if I had your untenable position.
Mike
-
Why is Kennedy propelled backward at the moment that Zapruder shows overt skull damage, while his wife beside him is not moved, yet Connally is propelled forward?
Mike, do you believe we are looking at an untampered piece of film evidence in Zapruder?
Mr. Andrews,
A pleasure to meet you Sir.
I can honestly say that I have no clue why he is propelled rearward. I suppose I could speculate, and offer nothing more than anyone already has by way of neural reactions, muscular etc etc. What i can tell you is it is not the impact of a projectile.
A projectile that perforates a target only imparts .1-.3% of its energy to that target. So. A 30-06 firing at 2600fps would impact with 2298 ft lbs of energy at 100 yards. This means if the bullet transits that only .1-.3% or 2.298ft lbs to 6.89 ft lbs of energy would be transferred. An average human punch is 110 ft lbs. So you see Sir it is impossible that a transiting bullet caused that violent rearward reaction.
Best to you,
Mike
-
Yeah, somwthing also covering everything from interior ballistics to exterior ballistics to wound ballistics.
Mr. Dolva,
I will begin a thread entitled "ballistics" we can go from there.
Again my apologies to Mr. Kelly as I had no intention of distraction.
Mike
Hey Mike, I started the thread and asked you the questions that started the diversion.
Thanks for going to a new thead on the subject of ballistics, as I think it is extremely important and not fully understood.
Your imput much appreciated.
BK
Mr. Kelly,
Thank You Sir. Yes I do believe understanding the ballistics is crucial.
If there is anything I can ever help you with I remain at your service.
Best Sir,
Mike
-
Mr. Burnham,
I would suggest to you that I look at this very scientifically. I offer you known trajectory, blood spatter, debris inside the body, kinetic energy transfer, and a host of other things we can see for ourselves, and not at all have to rely upon the opinion of a physician. As I said early on, I prefer to make my own educated conclusions rather than base my conclusions on the work of other.
An example would be Dr Perry and his complete reversal at the WC saying that all things considered it could have been an exit at the throat. The fact of the matter is he was not sure either way. That is evident.
It is unfortunate that you have disengaged this discussion, I feel I may have had something to offer you in the way of perspective.
Whoa there hold on. I just reread your post to me. Did you really say that I disregard the medical evidence?
Tell you what. What is your best piece of medical evidence of a shot from the front? Im talking evidence Mr. Burnham,not testimony.
I would also ask you what you would expect to see if a shot from the front had happened. How do you feel the body would have been moved by the projectile.
If you still wish to disengage that is fine. I understand completely.
My best to you Sir,
Mike
-
Sir,
I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process.
Can you define "very quick" more precisely? Do you think it would take you less than 1 second or more than 1 second?
Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds.
I was under the impression that he did not duplicate the conditions of duress that the shooter would have been under, including, the use of a tripod. I believe that is correct.
There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven.Not if one of the shooters were in front.
I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target.Where I come from we tend to rely on doctors to determine a great deal. No disrespect intended, but IMHO you have a lot of catching up to do.
Best,Mike
GO_SECURE
monk
Mr. Burnham,
Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last few years, then the basic principles of ballistics still apply.
I believe I already defined Quick in proving Frazier fired 3 very well aimed shots in 6 seconds. That sounds like an average of 3 seconds for the last two shots which included aiming and cycling the bolt. I would say that is pretty quick considering your theory that it takes 2.3 seconds to cycle the bolt without aiming (which I do not agree with). There are several videos that bear this out.
Frazier used no tripod in the testing of the rifle at the ranges. I also believe you assume duress, it is impossible to know the state of mind of the shooter.
There is no evidence whatsoever of a shooter from the front. Kinetic energy transfer indicates a rear shooter, as does Blood Spatter, inter-cranial fragment disbursement.
You do realize that the "violent backward motion" can not possibly be attributed directly to a bullet.
No disrespect taken Sir, not at all, and none intended when I say that I do not believe I need to catch up, I simply believe that many do not understand the ballistics and physics involved in a shooting event.
Where I come from an opinion is an opinion, until it is proven, it then becomes fact. From a ballistic stand point the fact now stands at no frontal shooter.
Do you have any other evidence other than the opinion of a doctor? Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir.
My best to you,
Mike
-
I think at the moment we're really looking at the mechanics of ballistics. We'll get to wound ballistics as well.
Well, it seems to me that wound ballistics are the direct result of the mechanics. One can tell a lot about the mechanics from the effects that were left behind.
But, if that was too far off--sorry.
Let's see: Mike said, (in Bill Kelly's unrelated thread) that he believes it was possible, if not probable, that one could "easily" have fired accurate head shots from the TSBD. He mentioned the "target" was traveling away from the sniper's position (presumptive), and only minimal lateral motion was present. He said that he was surprised that it took 3 shots to finally get a head shot.
Question:
Since it did take three shots, according to Mr Williams theory, and since the FBI determined that the minimum amount of time between shots that was required to cycle the Carcano (chamber a fresh round) was 2.3 seconds WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR ANY TIME TO AIM -- how easy (and quick) is it to re-acquire the target after having already fired a shot, and after having had to chamber a round?
Thanks
Sir,
I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process.
Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)
This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds.
There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven.
I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target.
Best,
Mike
Mike...Monk is a policeman. He knows firearms.
Jack
Mr. White,
Thank you for the info. It has been my experience that most policemen know marksmanship, this is a far cry from ballistics, unless of course one were specialized in ballistics from a forensic standpoint. Policemen too have misconceptions about ballistics and firearms. Knowing how to shoot and understanding the ballistics is very different. I have trained many civilian officers in advanced marksmanship. I have met some that were very informed, and some that know only basic marksmanship. I have met very few that had actually engaged a target.
So i am still left with the question as to Mr. Burnham's experience. I do not know his level of training nor his understanding of ballistics.
Mr. Burnham,
You do a loyal and much needed job Sir. A salute to you.
Mike
-
I think at the moment we're really looking at the mechanics of ballistics. We'll get to wound ballistics as well.
Well, it seems to me that wound ballistics are the direct result of the mechanics. One can tell a lot about the mechanics from the effects that were left behind.
But, if that was too far off--sorry.
Let's see: Mike said, (in Bill Kelly's unrelated thread) that he believes it was possible, if not probable, that one could "easily" have fired accurate head shots from the TSBD. He mentioned the "target" was traveling away from the sniper's position (presumptive), and only minimal lateral motion was present. He said that he was surprised that it took 3 shots to finally get a head shot.
Question:
Since it did take three shots, according to Mr Williams theory, and since the FBI determined that the minimum amount of time between shots that was required to cycle the Carcano (chamber a fresh round) was 2.3 seconds WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR ANY TIME TO AIM -- how easy (and quick) is it to re-acquire the target after having already fired a shot, and after having had to chamber a round?
Thanks
Sir,
I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process.
Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)
This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds.
There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven.
I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target.
Best,
Mike
-
The pipes.
Mr. White,
Thank you for that photo, that is one I did not have.
I believe at one time we got off on the wrong foot. This was a few years ago, and I do not even suspect you remember. I do offer my apologies Sir, there was more to it than met the eye. I hope you can accept that as I look forward to discussing issues with you, and learning from your wealth of information.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
)
)
)
Ballistics
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Tom,
I suspect that "old" heart has more then enough moxy to keep many who live on the soft side still on this side of the grass.
I see your reference to Ayoob, and could not agree more. It is readily apparent that this individual was in whoafully over their depth.
I actually chuckled out loud re your pellet gun reference and could not possibly agree more. Hell where I am from this is pellet gun/wrist rocket range!
Be well my friend
De Oppresso Liber and Semper Fi,
Mike