Mike Williams

Mr. Burnham, Pleasure to meet you Sir. First I would tell you that while I do enjoy reading material about the assassination, I would rather form my own conclusions, based on the evidence. I would however certainly not discount anything I have read at any time without good reason. Regarding the Parkland Doctors. One thing I can tell you is that projectiles are only predictable up to the point of impact. Anyone who has any experience in ballistics by way of practical or formal education, would tell you the same thing. I have actually observed a gunshot wound where the projectile entered the right posterior lower thorax, and exited the anterior right shin! When a person is asked if such and such is possible with a projectile, the honest answer always has to be yes, just because of the basic unpredictability of projectiles. Now we can make an educated guess, as long as we retain that it is just a guess. I base my opinion that all shots were fired from behind for a multitude of reasons. Trajectory, blood spatter, viability of shooting locations just to name a select few. The least of which is the high amount of probability that a shot from the front was and is almost impossible to replicate head wounds sustained. Furthermore to even consider an entrance of the throat, as described by the Parkland Docs has to include more magic than a the SBT ever could. These include viability of the shot, and the epic "where did the bullet go" question. An entry of the throat is one of the least likely scenarios. Simply it is illogical. I would further say that my time researching the assassination is restrained by lifes demands. I have little time to read material that is quite obviously disjointed and illogical. There are some out there who seem to be the type of people who work jigsaw puzzles with scissors. They have to trim and finagle to make the pieces fit. This should not be the case. My position on witness testimony is that it is important, but no where near as important as physical evidence. Testimony should support evidence, and not the other way about. Best to you Sir, Mike

Mr. Dolva, I calculate the following in regard to 313. Horizontal distance to target: 265.54' Elevation above target:68.4' Downward angle of rifle:14.5* Distance muzzle to target: 274.21' I will have to work on a graphic in regard to the opening in the window. I will try to determine dimensions from the photos we have. If you have any existing info on window size etc please pass it on to me. Best Sir, Mike

Mr. Dolva, I would have to reexamine the window opening to really give a competent answer. I will have to look for the info on size and opening. My initial thought is that this would not hamper the scope use, however I think this is something we can easily resolve. In your last post you asked the downward angle of "the shot" I assume we are talking about the 313 shot? Best Sir, Mike

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

Mr. Kelly, My apologies Sir I did not intend to distract from the topic at hand. Gents, I am more than happy to give my opinions for what they are worth, however perhaps we should begin a new thread as I do not wish to distract from the topic at hand. Mike

Mr. Dolva, Training would have been stationary. However, at a speed of 11.2mph the target would move 1.31 feet away and drop about .05" considering a downgrade of 3* during the duration of the travel of the projectile @ 2165fps. This would in fact be very easy to track. If we consider the scope being used the furthest shot would have had the appearance of being only 25 yards away. In regard to repositioning and requiring the target. Please forgive the size of the attached graphic, I wanted it to be clear enough to see. My opinion is that there was very little rotation, also the MC has a very manageable recoil. Reacquiring the target would be pretty easy. Thank you for the kind words. Mike Edit spelling

Glenn, Greetings Sir. I wish that were something I could calculate. I think there is more than a fair bit of evidence that he was the shooter, however, I am not certain we will ever be able to place him behind that rifle beyond the shadow of any doubt. There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence, if one is to take the evidence at face value. However, I personally have issues with some of this evidence, and its integrity. I do believe I can prove, at least to my own satisfaction that all shots came from the 6th floor window, that in no way whatsoever concludes who fired them. Frankly that is not my forte. I believe he had the ability, and the means. I am less sure of his motive. Best to you Sir, Mike

Mr. Dolva, In my opinion, It would be possible to use the scope and strap, however as I said earlier this would be completely unneeded. These were not difficult shots by any means, but then again LHO was only a marginal marksman by Marine standards. This would still make him a better marksman than an average civilian with no training at all. If we consider that the target is for the most part moving away and only slightly left to right, then I believe there was plenty of room to track the target. It would require very little swing of the weapon. I do believe we could reasonably expect a head shot to be successful, Lee would have qualified at 200 300 and 500 meters with open sights. A hundred yard shot, especially if the scope were used, would be very likely to have a hit. I am rather surprised that it took 3 shots to manage it. I do not believe the sun would play a huge part. Although if memory serves the sun was shining right on the face of the building, he was aiming down, not up towards the sun. I believe the sun would have had little part in hampering him. Best to you Sir, Mike

Double post.

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. 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

So you were discussing Marine Policy, I see. I have never heard Marine Policy referred to as General Orders. I suggest before you make such statements you know the subject matter. Try reading : Marine Corps Order (MCO) 3574.2J - ENTRY LEVEL AND SUSTAINMENT LEVEL MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE M16A2 SERVICE RIFLE AND M9 SERVICE PISTOL. Never heard of Mike Williams, did you bother to look at my profile here, or do you prefer to work off of assumptions. You know you don't have too answer that, the correct reply is readily apparent. I have to say Bill O'Reilly hit the nail on the head. How in the world would you expect anyone to take you seriously? How could you expect anyone to take your word as anything but contemptible? You Sir are a joke, and any opinions you have on Judith Baker, or anything else for that matter, should be closely scrutinized, as Barb and many others of good sense have so readily done. ************************************************ Fetzer IS a veteran of the Marine Corps, Williams. Semper Fi, Fetz. Im happy for him Terry. You supporting him and his nonsense is completely expected. I would have expected nothing less from you. IF Fetzer was a Marine Office, he discredits himself and the Marine Corp with his ridiculous nonsense. Mike

"Well, I looked at your profile and it was bereft of information. If you put in 24 years, what was your rank when you got out? What was your MOS? I find it very peculiar that you show up on this important thread with rubbish. And that you are continuing suggests that I am right in my belief that Tink led you here. Is that true or false, Marine? It is embarrassing to see a former Marine serving as a stooge for those who want to obfuscate the truth about JFK." My rank was Master Gunnery Sgt. My MOS was in my profile had you taken the time to read it. I assure you Tink did not lead me here, as I have my own mind to follow. I simply call em as I see em. You are correct it is an embarrassment to see a Former Marine serve as a stooge and obfuscate the truth about JFK, so I have to ask, why do you do it?

Mr. Dolva, Thank you Sir. I have been out of the hunt for a time, and am happy to be back. It is good to see you so obviously have Fetzer figured out. Rather transparent to say the least. Tom Purvis is MIA? how very disappointing, as I enjoy very much talking to Tom. He is one of the few who actually understands the ballistics of the case! And Al Carrier is certainly a top notch individual. I may not agree with all of their conclusions, but their ideas are well thought and heart felt. They are the genuine article! At any rate Mr. Dolva it is my pleasure to meet you Sir, and I look forward to chatting in the future. Mike Williams

So you were discussing Marine Policy, I see. I have never heard Marine Policy referred to as General Orders. I suggest before you make such statements you know the subject matter. Try reading : Marine Corps Order (MCO) 3574.2J - ENTRY LEVEL AND SUSTAINMENT LEVEL MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE M16A2 SERVICE RIFLE AND M9 SERVICE PISTOL. Never heard of Mike Williams, did you bother to look at my profile here, or do you prefer to work off of assumptions. You know you don't have too answer that, the correct reply is readily apparent. I have to say Bill O'Reilly hit the nail on the head. How in the world would you expect anyone to take you seriously? How could you expect anyone to take your word as anything but contemptible? You Sir are a joke, and any opinions you have on Judith Baker, or anything else for that matter, should be closely scrutinized, as Barb and many others of good sense have so readily done.

"In 1957, Oswald shot a 212, which qualified him as a "Sharpshooter". That is reasonably good shooting, a score in the range that I myself attained (where one year, but only one, as I recall, I quaified as "Expert"). But in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is very odd. And in 1959, he barely qualified with a 191. Those working the pits are keeping track of a shooter's score, of course, and it has been known to happen that, if the last shot made the difference between qualifying and not, they might give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. But there can be no doubt that, with a 191 in 1959, he was a poor shot, which his fellow Marines would all have known. But that does not meant that he would have told a prospective girlfriend as much, where it is more likely that he might have said that, when he was in recruit training, he had shot 212 and qualified as a "Sharpshooter". That is hardly the only exaggeration that young Marines have been know to tell young women who interested them. So I think Judyth's report needs to be understood in context. What is actually far more fascinating to me as a former Marine is that in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is in violation of a general order that applies to all Marines, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private--even including the Commandant of the Corps."-ALA Fetzer First off they are not called the "pits" they are called the "butz" Second of all anyone who fires a 191 maybe a poor shot by Marine standards, but this score is far above average for the civilian world. Third, could you show me just which General Order that it would violate by not qualifying with a rifle? A Marines General Orders are as follows... 1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view. 2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing. 3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce. 4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guardhouse than my own. 5. To quit my post only when properly relieved. 6. To receive, obey, and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Officer Of the Day, and officers, and non-commissioned officers of the guard only. 7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty. 8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder. 9. To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions. 10. To salute all officers, and all colors and standards not cased. 11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post, and to allow no one to pass without proper authority. About the only thing Fetzer posts in that blathering dialog that even remotely smacks of truth is that he qualified only once as "Expert". This to me comes as no surprise as he is so often off the mark. 24 years, 24 expert ratings, I am rather proud of that accomplishment...

maybe thats why there were 2 rifles, his.............and hers.

Evan do you mean in research, or the forum issues? I would hope just the forum issues so as to have a manageable figure.

Terry, Every Marine that has ever worn the uniform qualifies at 200-300 and 500 yards, with the m-16, and iron sights! Look ma, no scope! Scout/Snipers train and qualify regularly at 1000 yards. A shot of 750 yards, depending upon the rifle of course, would not be a great feat for someone with a bit of training and experience. I do not know that those arrested fit that, but, the shot itself is very doable. Mike

It was sent to all members via the mass mail facility on the forum - I can publish the board log of this if you like Jack OR you can continue to believe that you are being persecuted. I wonder which option fits your mindset best? Reading comprehension does seem to be directly related to the more ......um....far fetched theorists. Mind set.....and match! Mike

At the risk of sounding like a yup yup. YUP! Mike

The same email was sent to every member of the forum. It did not accuse you personally of being involved in such a conspiracy. But of course John! Maybe the fact that someone thinks they were personally accused, when everyone got the mail, is an indication of the real issue!

How could she possibly know all this? My guess is she has seen the Zapruder film a million times, like all of us, as this is depicted in the film. I must have missed that part of the film. Where is Jackie "pulling desperately" to get Clint Hill on the car? The back up car does seem to be within mandated distance at the head shot. I would say the lady is correct on the issue of the SS location, they were in position, however, I believe she is mistaken about the "pulling" business.

Don, And I will spell it out for you. Just because we have one nose of a bullet, and one tail of a bullet does not make them automatically from the same bullet. So wheres the proof that they are? Mike, The proof is in the WC evidence, if you have 3 bullets fired and one of the recovered bullets (CE399) has a base this leaves two bullets. What are the chances these two bullets ripped apart from the base just above the crimping portion of the bullet? Not likely. The base and the cone were found in the area of the front seat, common sense will tell you these two fragments are from the same bullet. Don No Don common sense would tell you you can not make that assumption. Still have not read what Frazier had to say I see.

No question in my mind! Im glad to have gone from nemesis to friend! Mike Since my eyesight is getting to the point that I can barely read what I attempt to type, even with the 2.75 reading lenses, I just may require the services of a friend and/or someone who can still sufficiently see to shoot. Especially if I keep pointing out the WC as well as HSCA's little sleight-of-hand manipulations. Hell Im only on 1.5 magnification, but only for close up stuff so you just give a Mississippi holler and Ill come a runnin!