Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
You Swabbies dont have Drill Instructors lol.
Thats true! lmao
I walked through boot camp laughing because it was a joke compared to all the horror stories I heard
The only problem I had was being tired from such small amounts of sleep for the first two weeks
But after I got used to it I was fine
And Mike I do understand what your saying, but for years everyone said Garrison was crazy and he could never tie them together
This photo at the very least vindicates Garrison, you have to admit that
Here is a secret....I had my picture taken with Ronald Reagan, and I assure you, 10 seconds later he had no idea who I was lol.
Well maybe a few seconds longer than 10 but yanno.....
Would I say that that picture confirms they were associates....no. Friends.....no. Knew of each others existence for a short period of time, of course.
There is a huge difference there.
-
And Mike I was in boot camp 14 years ago and I still remember, so you cant say its fresh in my head
Fine.
What were their wives names?
What did they do before the military?
How many kids did they have?
What were their hobbies?
What kind of pets did they have?
-
Neither of you has done a single thing worth mentioning, to promote conspiracy.
Oh really Mike?
Ferrie never knew Oswald right?
Garrison has done nothing to promote conspiracy?
How do you explain this picture of a CAP Picnic with Oswald and Ferrie?
Remember all of Garrisons critics always said he was wrong because he couldnt tie Ferrie to Oswald.....
I would have loved to see the faces of Garrisons critcs when they saw this picture for the first time
Dean,
I have a boot camp photo of my whole platoon, and 4 Drill Instructors.
I only ever knew one drill instructor, who I served in the 1stMARDIV with later. The rest I have no clue about, and spent 13 weeks with them!
So a photo like that is really worthless in terms of attempting to apply an association.
Mike I remember the names of all 3 of my Drill Instructors from Great Lakes
I remember what they look like as well and could pick them out of any photo
So your argument means nothing
And this picture proves that Oswald knew Ferrie
Do you think Oswald was standing in that picture saying in his head "Wow I have no idea who that funny looking guy is whos in charge"
How can you look at that picture and say it dosent prove anything?!
You Swabbies dont have Drill Instructors lol.
My point is Dean there is a huge difference in knowing someone that they exist, and knowing someone as in a friendship or something beyond an acquaintance.
I knew my DI's, I knew they existed, but I did not know them any more than that.
Do you see what I am saying here?
-
The neck wound was not an entrance?
THen what was the track from back to front?
Better yet, if the back wound did not transit, which of course it did, how could JFK have suffered a hemo/pneumothorax?
In other words how could the upper right Pleura and upper right lung have sustained damage if not for a transiting bullet?
If the neck wound was an entrance, where did it go?
Please spare me the hog wash that a bullet impacting at a downward angle can not exit anatomically higher than it entered.
Mike your question has always interested me. As you know, the New York Times quotes Dr. Clark a few days after the assassiantion as saying the bullet entered Kennedy from the front, ranged downward and did not exit. I looked into this some time ago and found out that this was what Perry told him. I cannot recall my sources for Perry telling this to Clark, but the New York Times article is available to anyone. Of course how did Perry arrive at this conclusion? He must have seen the bullet/bullet track or inferred that it did not exit due to Dr. Carrico's manual examination of Kennedy's back underneath his shirt. Carrico detected no wound in the back at that time. A bullet ranging downward would cause the pneumothorax you wonder about. As to why it did not exit, I cannot say. Perhaps it was a bullet which caused a through and though hole in the windshield observed by several at Parkland hospital. Or perhaps not. One can only go by the observations of the doctors and nurses who saw the wound before Perry performed the trach. It had all the appearances of an entrance wound, and according to Perry, it "ranged downward." Well, that's my best shot. Respectfully, Daniel
Daniel,
The first thing I would ask you to do is look at an article I wrote sometime ago. It shows rather conclusively that there was no hole in the windshield.
http://www.jfkballistics.com/AHoleInOne.html
Secondly, I can certainly understand the Doctors confusion if they thought there was no back exit. I wonder, is this the reason they just assumed the throat was an entrance?
Clearly what we do know is that Humes initially was just as dumbfounded to find a back wound....and no exit, and no bullet!
However when we put the pieces together, we see something.
We see a bullet hole in the back, with copper on the cloth (entrance indication). We have wound in the back we have a pneumo/hemothorax we have a wound to the throat. We have a deviated esphogus (indication of a hemo/pneumothorax).
Most significantly we have NO lead on the tie or the shirt! This is epic. It indicates exit, and not entrance.
-
Neither of you has done a single thing worth mentioning, to promote conspiracy.
Oh really Mike?
Ferrie never knew Oswald right?
Garrison has done nothing to promote conspiracy?
How do you explain this picture of a CAP Picnic with Oswald and Ferrie?
Remember all of Garrisons critics always said he was wrong because he couldnt tie Ferrie to Oswald.....
I would have loved to see the faces of Garrisons critcs when they saw this picture for the first time
Dean,
I have a boot camp photo of my whole platoon, and 4 Drill Instructors.
I only ever knew one drill instructor, who I served in the 1stMARDIV with later. The rest I have no clue about, and spent 13 weeks with them!
So a photo like that is really worthless in terms of attempting to apply an association.
-
The neck wound was not an entrance?
THen what was the track from back to front?
Better yet, if the back wound did not transit, which of course it did, how could JFK have suffered a hemo/pneumothorax?
In other words how could the upper right Pleura and upper right lung have sustained damage if not for a transiting bullet?
If the neck wound was an entrance, where did it go?
Please spare me the hog wash that a bullet impacting at a downward angle can not exit anatomically higher than it entered.
-
Mikey , I just said, let us get going.
Beating up on you is like hitting slow pitch.
Slow...now thats a fitting description for you Jimbo....
You and Garrison were cut from the same mold buddy. Neither of you has done a single thing worth mentioning, to promote conspiracy.
-
Oh yes and by the way. You did nothing to convince anyone that Garrison was not a nut case, but you did plenty to lead me to believe you are!
So I hold Garrison is still a loon, what else do you have to support that he was not?
In 47 years not one shred of evidence exists of a conspiracy, and you keep chasing the breeze....
-
Kamikaze, you got your butt kicked on this one.
You were dumb enough to bring up Kerry Thornley and you got taken to school.
You were dumb enough to suggest JG was "corrupt" and you got nailed.
You were dumb enough to bring up those phony trials and your ignorance was revealed in all its stunning vapidity.
If anyone has been shown to be absolutely empty of any info, insight, or research skills Mikey, it is you.
If you are too ignorant to know when you got a butt thumping stick around. Say something else that can be hit out of the park. I am all set to pillory you again.
So please do.
Jimbo you are a trip, and so predictable.
You look to have been very busy posting in this thread....I imagine that took up considerable time and effort....
Dont worry we can continue the fun!
:ice -
I would certainly be agreeable to an attempt to locate all the extant JG files and place them online somewhere to make them accessible.
The problem is in locating them first, and then finding place to to put them that is above reproach.
I actually tried to do this many years ago. But the guy I was thinking of using as a repository ended up not being trustworthy.
I guess one place to ask would be Rex Bradford, but I am not so sure he would be eager to do it.
But to my knowledge no one has better scanning capability.
So first you have to locate them all, then you have to find a way copy them all, then you have to scan them all.
It is not an easy job to do.
But I am all ears.
Quite, and with nothing in between!
-
roger that....you got it.
-
Where did the "crack" (very probably a through and through hole) in the limo windshield come form then? Was it yet another separate round (#4) or was it
a skull fragment that also was "magical" in that it broke off the head, flew over the chrome, and changed directions to strike the windshield from the front?
The windshield was damaged from the inside. Likely a fragment of the head shot as well. It has smears of lead, but no copper. It was merely a crack and there was no hole, as I have clearly demonstrated.
You still have my email? I know you said you wanted to talk but I never heard back from ya. If you want I can PM you my cell number. Just a thought. I do enjoy the sane and civil conversations with you.
-
One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.
The throat wound was an entrance. It was described as such by the Parkland doctors and nurses, and the back wound
is too low to have been an entrance for a throat exit. The back wound was probed by Humes and Finck and
no transit through the body was found.
Tell ya what then Cliffy. Explain how Kennedy managed to have suffered a hemo/pneumo thorax during the shooting.
The Parkland staff only had a glimpse of that wound, and even at that at the most two people saw it. So I do not know who you are trying to fool.
So tell me there bucko....where did this front entering bullet go?
-
Mike Williams appears to be a buffoon, a blow-hard, and a shill. To
defend this position, he has to discount the most important evidence
we have about the wound to the back of his head--the Dealey Plaza
witnesses, Clint Hill, the Parkland physicians, both McClelland and
Crenshaw's diagrams, and David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, not
to mention Gary Aguilar's research on the descriptions of the wound--
and, most importantly, Thomas Evan Robinson's detailed observations.
Why should anyone take him seriously after this bizarre performance?
I have three questions for him for which my answers are given below.
(1) In relation to these three diagrams (from Parkland, from Bethesda
and from the HSCA), which most accurately represents the head wound?
(2) Where was JFK hit? Just describe the locations and nature of the
wounds he sustained, independently of your reasons for thinking so.
(3) Who is the single best witness when it comes to understanding the
wounds in corresponding to your beliefs and why do you agree with him?
My answers:
(1) The Parkland description is the most accurate. The Bethesda has
it after Humes used his saw and the HSCA presentation is indefensible.
To this day, I cannot understand why one or another member of the HSCA
medical panel, which included Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., did not raise
an enormous commotion in protest of the complete transformation of the
wound from its description in the signed autopsy report (the second of
these three images) and the HSCA representation (which is the third). I
might add that I have written to Cyril today to ask him this question.
(2) He was hit in the throat and incurred a small, clean oval wound.
He was hit in the back by a shot that entered about 5.5 inches below
his collar, which was a shallow wound at a downward angle that had no
point of exit. He was hit in the right temple by a shot that blew his
brains out the back of his head to the left/rear. The blow-out was a
the rear of his head, slightly to the right, and was the size of your
fist when you double it up. There was also a small entry wound to the
back of his head that entered around the EOP and was only discovered on
the basis of locating inward beveling on a small piece of bone fragment.
(3) Thomas Evan Robinson. As the mortician, he had the longest time to
examine the wounds as he prepared the body for burial. He has not only
confirmed the entry wound in the right temple, the blow-out at the back
of the head, and the wound to his back, but also testified that he had
a "nasty" throat wound. He did not observe the small, clean entry wound
because it had been completely obscured by alteration to make it look as
if it were a wound of exit. He had observed Humes take a saw to enlarge
the blow-out at the back of the head, so he knew the difference between
the wound JFK had sustained and the larger wound that Humes had created.
Your answers?
I have previously explained that we not only have the other Crenshaw
diagram of the throat wound before and after the tracheostomy, which
was performed by Malcolm Perry, but also Perry's description of it as a
wound of entry, which he did THREE TIMES during the Parkland press
conference, which I included in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) as it
Appendix ( C ). Your denial of the existence of evidence of shots from
the front is so bizarre that I really cannot believe your pretensions to
knowledge of ballistics has any foundation. You come across as a fraud.
And of course the massive blow-out of his brains and debris to the left/
rear impacted Officer Hargis so hard that he thought that he himself
had been shot. The brains splattered across the trunk was enough to
nauseate several Secret Service agents when they observed the limo in
the parking structure in Washington, D.C. And Erwin Swartz, a friend
of Zapruder, reported observing the blow out to the left/rear when he
viewed (what appears to have been) the unaltered Zapruder film after
its development in Dallas, additional evidence of a shot from the front.
Are you not aware of the fact that, when Malcolm Kilduff announced JFK's
death, he pointed to his right temple and said that it was a simple matter
of a bullet right through the head? And that, on radio and television that
day, there were reports of two shots, one to the throat and one to the head,
which Chet Huntley reported as a simple matter of a bullet to the head "which
entered his right temple", attributing that finding to Admiral George Burkley,
the president's personal physician? How grossly do you think you can get
away with misrepresenting the evidence? You have gone beyond absurd.
Mike,
You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say there is no evidence of a shot from the front. There would have never been a critical community connected to this case if there hadn't been overwhelming indications that shots were fired from the front.
The majority of witnesses reported that the shots came from in front. Look at the photos and film- everyone rushed up the grassy knoll afterwards. Except for Marion Baker, the TSBD was virtually ignored at first by law enforcement and spectators. Even most of those inside or standing in front of the TSBD reported that the shots came front the knoll/ railroad area. Lots of "echoes" that day, I suppose.
Don,
There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.
First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.
Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.
The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.
There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.
The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.
The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.
The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.
One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.
Fetzer proves himself a useless gasbag as always.
Jim simple stuff here. Show me the physical evidence. Xrays? Z film? anything, anything at all?
Oh yeah they all have to be faked forged or altered to prove your case dont they?
You are about as low as they come. The comical thing is that you do not even believe your own crap, you simply do it to make a buck. The sad thing is, the people of this good forum are your victims.
They deserve better than you Jimbo. No matter if they agree with my position on the assassination or not.
-
Mike,
Even though I thoroughly disagree with everything you have written here, let me ask you a question and
"pretend" that there were no shots from the front.
If there were no shots from the front, then all shots came from the rear according to you. If true, how many
shots did LHO get off? Sounds like 5 to me.
Let's count them, shall we? According to your own count, but in no particular order:
1) One shot hit Kennedy in the head;
2) One shot (the Magic Bullet) wounded both Kennedy and Connally (several times);
3) One shot missed the occupants and struck the curb wounding James Tague;
4) One shot caused a dent in the chrome of the limo;
5) One shot struck the windshield;
So, even if all shots came from the rear how did LHO do THAT?
Don,
There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.
First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.
Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.
The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.
There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.
The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.
The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.
The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.
One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.
Greg,
My contention is simple.
Shot one missed, possibly nicked Tague.
Shot two Hit Kennedy and Connally.
Shot three Fragmented in the head and sent one fragment forward to dent the chrome. (simple deduction here, as the chrome strike is not a fell velocity impact).
For those that disbelieve, a Carcano bullet has a sectional density in the .283 range. It consumes roughly 30 ftlbs of energy for every inch of flesh it transits.
This has a two fold implication. One it is a deep penetrating round very capable of the SBT. It is also capable at full velocity of tearing that chrome and steel mullion to shreds.
Of course there are those among you who no doubt squabble about the SBT.
SO I have one quick question.
If there is a hole in the back, where did the bullet go?
If there is a hole in the Front, where did the bullet go?
There is also documented proof JFK suffered a hemo/pneumo thorax during the attack. If that bullet did not transit, how the hell did he manage to have a hemo/pneumothorax?
-
Kamikaze Mike: There is absolutely not one shred of evidence of a shot from the front.
If you are to disagree please post what you consider to be evidence of a shot entering the front. I caution you, the old arguments of back and to the left are ridiculous.
1. Sam Holland's hearing shots from and detection of smoke form behind the grassy knoll and his finding of weird prints there.
2. Lee Bowers testimony about the cars coming into that area, the flash of light, and then the man shoving something back into the trunk of the car.
3. Joe Smith's testimony about the false SS men up on the knoll.
4.The testimony of Newman, Hudson and Zapruder about the shots coming form behind them.
5. J.C. Price's testimony about a man running toward the parked cars near the rail line with something in his hand that may have been a head piece.
6. The FBi report declassified in 1977 about a couple of men behind the picket fence who appeared to be aiming a wooden stick or something two days before the murder.
7. The gaping avulsive wound to the rear of Kennedy's skull.
8. The rocketing back of Kennedy's entire body in the Zapruder film therefore obeying the laws of physics and Newton's laws of motion. Plus the fact that the neuromuscular reaction, jet effect and goat films have all been exposed as being BS.
9. THe fact that there is simply too much brian damage as reported by Doug Horne and others to account for just one bullet. Plus the fact that John Stringer disowned the brain photographs in the Archives.
10. Tom Robinson's testimony before the ARRB.
11. The fact that in the Z film, the explosion near the front of the head resembles that of a frangible bullet.
12. Jackie crawling out the back of the car to pick up debris expelled from the exploding skull. Plus the fact of her uncensored testimony about the appearance of JFK's head to her right afterwards.
13. How David Mantik has fit the Harper fragment into the rear of the skull.
Not one shred of evidence huh? You are such a joke you make DVP look sophisticated.
1. Yet there is no evidence that what Holland says it true. There is nothing to support it.
2. Lee Bowers only says that he felt something had happened there. He was not certain of what happened. As for the people in the cars, is there any evidence that this was sinister?
3. Is there any evidence that this ever happened? Or is Smith being as presumptuous as you are Jimmy?
4. This one always gives me a laugh. You do realize that the TSBD is behind them, yes?
5. That may have been? What the hell is that? It may have been a transistor radio, or any number of other things. People were running all over the place. Only you Jimmy would consider this evidence.
6. Id love to see the source of that report. I can destroy it in 30 seconds.
7. Well here is a two fold doosey just for you. One I do not believe that wound exists. I believe the wound was to the side of the head. However even if it did exist, this would well have been an entrance of a full metal jacket bullet.
8. Ahhhhh Finally something we partially agree on. Those notions were BS. However, I fear you are in woefully over your depth if you really believe that the backward motion we see is justification of a shot from the front. But I will be happy to educate you.
We know that a bullet only transfers .1 to .3% of its energy to the target.
This is generally less than 10 ft lbs of force in a transiting shot. The human punch is 110 ft lbs on average.
So in order for a transiting bullet to transfer the same amount of force as a punch:
Lets take the Carcano as an example:
As we can see the impact energy at 90 yards is 1328 ft-lbs since we are passing through skull we should use the higher end at .3%
So
1328*.003= 3.98 ft-lbs of energy to the target, and a human punch on average is 110 Ft. Lbs.
With the above considered how many Ft-Lbs of energy would a transiting bullet have to strike with in order to transfer 110ft-lbs to the target?
37,000*.003=111Ft.-Lbs.
How would we achieve this?
An 800 grain .50 cal BMG has an energy of 14,895 ft-lbs at the muzzle.
So lets grab 2 of those for a total of 29790 ft-lbs
which leaves us 7210 ft-Lbs.
7.62x51 nato (.308) is 175 grains and 2627 ft.-lbs at the muzzle.
so lets grab 2 of those and we are up to 35,044 ft lbs
We still need another 1956 ft lbs......hmmmm.....
how about the .45 acp in 230 grains as it has a muzzle energy of 352 ft lbs
so lets grab 5 of those
we are now at 36,804 ft lbs.
damn still short......by......196 ft lbs!
so lets go back shopping and get......
1 32 grain .22 cal with 191 ft lbs of energy
We are still short by 5 ft lbs, so I suppose we could shoot with a carcano as well which adds another 3.98 ft lbs....
So in order to hit a target with enough transiting shots to equal a human punch we need to hit them with:
2-.50 cals
2-.308cals
5-.45 acp's
1-.22 cal
and a carcano
all at the same time.
really now.........
Oh yes and your "frangible bullet idea"?
"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
weapons."
9. This is comical. From what I have read, almost every single doctor who worked on JFK agree that the photos, and xrays are authentic, and resemble what they saw. I was not aware that Horne was a wound ballistics expert.
10. An Embalmer? Now thats rich. I think first you better settle the issues you have with the medical professionals.
11. No frangible bullet: See number 8.
12. Well then by all means, show me this material on the trunk.
13. Man you really are behind the times huh?
There is nothing of substance in any of your items here Jimmy.
ahh, you ARE nervous, son. btw, your frangible bullet expert, "Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays." He ever show an x-ray depicting frangible bullet breakup example? Or do we have to take your word for what he said?
Ya post a lot of mumbo jumbo above, can you cite any of the above or are you just another lone nut noise maker, Sgt Mikey? Just curious
David,
No need to take my word for anything, thats why they call it research. Run the figures yourself, and then come back and refute what I posted.
-
Mike,
You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say there is no evidence of a shot from the front. There would have never been a critical community connected to this case if there hadn't been overwhelming indications that shots were fired from the front.
The majority of witnesses reported that the shots came from in front. Look at the photos and film- everyone rushed up the grassy knoll afterwards. Except for Marion Baker, the TSBD was virtually ignored at first by law enforcement and spectators. Even most of those inside or standing in front of the TSBD reported that the shots came front the knoll/ railroad area. Lots of "echoes" that day, I suppose.
Don,
There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.
First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.
Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.
The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.
There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.
The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.
The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.
The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.
One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.
-
AND YET NOT ONE OFFICER WHO SEES RUBY STANDING THERE WITHOUT A CAMERA GOES OVER AND CHALLENGES HIM? NOBODY CHECKS HIS ID TO FIND OUT WHO HE IS AND WHAT HE'S DOING THERE?
There wasn't much time to do anything like that, Gilbert. Ruby was in the basement for less than ONE MINUTE before he shot Oswald. And he LOOKED like a reporter. He didn't look out of place at all.
And you think Ruby's lack of a CAMERA is important in some way?
You're strange, Gil.
Well Good to see DVP is handing out the daily spanking to the Likes of Jimmy D and Gilbert Jesus.
Not that its all that difficult to outwit them.
Say Gil, you have a good used water pump for a 97 Blazer?
:ice -
Brilliant thread, Mike..Garrison was corrupt....that's it....brilliant analysis, richly annotated, filled with disturbing factoids...Oh Wait..you haven't done anything but started a provocative thread title.
Never came across you before..be sure to ignore your posts in the future, so, something came outta this..
If thats all you have to offer Steve please do disregard my posts. I dont think I would even notice.
no sweat, you won't be making the nutter varsity anytime soon... <lone nut boring>
Perhaps someday David you will actually post something about the assassination? That would be refreshing.
-
Are you attempting to be condescending, or simply coming off that way out of habit?
Neither. I was simply stating a fact.
Why don't you take a shot at answering the questions instead of evading them?
Fine, as droll as they are.
1. Any and all experience is listed in Testimony. Read what the qualifications are and then see for yourself.
2. I do not doubt their competence, I only question their experience. They were certainly less qualified than Nicol. (See #1)
3. I dont know that they do disagree with Nicol.
4. I do not know that anyone else ever looked at his work. I find little rebutting evidence.
5. Who ever said it did not create any doubt. That is why I made the post in the first place.
-
I am curious to hear the thoughts of the forum about the Testimony of Joseph Nicol. He was at the time of his testimony, the most experienced ballistic examiner to study the bullets removed from JDT. He testifies that he positively matched one bullet, to the exclusion of all others.
Is this not a strong indication that Oswald was in fact guilty of the murder of JDT?
On page 251 of With Malice, Dale Myers wrote:
One ballistic expert, Joseph D. Nicol, did find "sufficient individual characteristics" on one of the four bullets to reach the conclusion that it had been fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.However, none of the eight ballistic experts who have examined the bullets agree with Nicol's positive identification.(Italics added)From Myers' footnotes:
These experts who examined ballistics evidence in the Tippit case for the Warren Commission included Cortland Cunningham,
Robert A. Frazier, and Charles Killion of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
Myers also listed five ballistics experts for the HSCA that disagreed with Nicol's conclusion.
Michael,
Interesting that Nicol finds 7 points of match on that one bullet. Also interesting that Nicol is by far the more experienced examiner of the group.
Can you provide evidence that Nicol was by far the more experienced examiner, including the five experts that appeared before the HSCA?
Are you saying the other experts were not as competent as Nicol? Do you doubt the competence of the three FBI experts?
What were the 7 points of match on that one bullet and why did the other experts disagree with Nicol?
Why do you think Nicol was outnumbered eight to one?
The unanimous disagreement of the eight other government-appointed experts creates no doubts in your mind?
As near as I have been able to tell. Cunningham, with 5 years experience, and thousands of comparisons, was far less experienced than Nicol with 23 years experience and 50K comparisons a year!
Frazier, I am sure looked at Cunninghams work and agreed. However I find nothing that says Frazier attempted a match himself. This was of course before Nicol. I have not found any reference as to any examiner reevaluating the evidence after Nicol, until the HSCA.
I do find it compelling that Nicol found a match, and if their experience levels were equal, I would be highly suspect. Frankly, 7 points of match, from an experienced examiner can not just be discarded.
Likewise, of all the members of the Medical Panel, only Dr. Wecht showed dissent. Yet the CT crowd sure stacks up behind him. SO why accept Wecht, and discard Nicol?
You didn't answer my questions. I tried to make them as simple as possible.
"tried to make them as simple as possible"
Are you attempting to be condescending, or simply coming off that way out of habit?
-
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
Man Garrison was not a very mentally stable guy huh?
-
I am curious to hear the thoughts of the forum about the Testimony of Joseph Nicol. He was at the time of his testimony, the most experienced ballistic examiner to study the bullets removed from JDT. He testifies that he positively matched one bullet, to the exclusion of all others.
Is this not a strong indication that Oswald was in fact guilty of the murder of JDT?
On page 251 of With Malice, Dale Myers wrote:
One ballistic expert, Joseph D. Nicol, did find "sufficient individual characteristics" on one of the four bullets to reach the conclusion that it had been fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.However, none of the eight ballistic experts who have examined the bullets agree with Nicol's positive identification.(Italics added)From Myers' footnotes:
These experts who examined ballistics evidence in the Tippit case for the Warren Commission included Cortland Cunningham,
Robert A. Frazier, and Charles Killion of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
Myers also listed five ballistics experts for the HSCA that disagreed with Nicol's conclusion.
Michael,
Interesting that Nicol finds 7 points of match on that one bullet. Also interesting that Nicol is by far the more experienced examiner of the group.
Can you provide evidence that Nicol was by far the more experienced examiner, including the five experts that appeared before the HSCA?
Are you saying the other experts were not as competent as Nicol? Do you doubt the competence of the three FBI experts?
What were the 7 points of match on that one bullet and why did the other experts disagree with Nicol?
Why do you think Nicol was outnumbered eight to one?
The unanimous disagreement of the eight other government-appointed experts creates no doubts in your mind?
As near as I have been able to tell. Cunningham, with 5 years experience, and thousands of comparisons, was far less experienced than Nicol with 23 years experience and 50K comparisons a year!
Frazier, I am sure looked at Cunninghams work and agreed. However I find nothing that says Frazier attempted a match himself. This was of course before Nicol. I have not found any reference as to any examiner reevaluating the evidence after Nicol, until the HSCA.
I do find it compelling that Nicol found a match, and if their experience levels were equal, I would be highly suspect. Frankly, 7 points of match, from an experienced examiner can not just be discarded.
Likewise, of all the members of the Medical Panel, only Dr. Wecht showed dissent. Yet the CT crowd sure stacks up behind him. SO why accept Wecht, and discard Nicol?
-
I am curious to hear the thoughts of the forum about the Testimony of Joseph Nicol. He was at the time of his testimony, the most experienced ballistic examiner to study the bullets removed from JDT. He testifies that he positively matched one bullet, to the exclusion of all others.
Is this not a strong indication that Oswald was in fact guilty of the murder of JDT?
Only if you can connect Oswald to any of the bullets.
BK
Bill,
I hardly think that is a problem. Oswald was arrested with this pistol in his possession, and he never denies having it.
DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Cliffy then all you have to do to support this position is get a bullet into the throat at a 90 degree angle, and not go through the windshield.
Of course there was no hole in the windshield, but lets just tinker to the looney for a minute and say there was. How would a round that supposedly dissolves in seconds in human tissue, survive an impact with glass?
From a ballistic standpoint this is as ridiculous as the Greer done it theory.