Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
Now have the person under the red arrow back up until their standing height matches Arnold and tell me where their feet would be??? You see, real people seen over the wall and backed up to Arnold's size show the same body proportions within reason as Arnold had. This is just why I said that Arnold can be shown not to be too short by shooting a recreation photo with someone back by the fence as Arnold was.
It appears that your animation can prevent someone from having to go to Dallas just to show the flaws in your claim. Good work!!![/b]
Bill Miller
Total nonsense above of course.
You tried it and could not get the correct result, and now you are saying that anyone can get the correct reult by placing someone in the correct location. Just one question...Why didn't you then??????
All you managed to produce was a Mike Brown blob ( below ) which in no way matched the size of Arnold.
Duncan MacRae
Duncan,
In the flashing animation above, there is a horizontal line which in the static photo would come pretty close to the man in the black shirts feet. Now the man in the black shirt is almost as wide as the tree which is behind him, this would tell us he has to be closer to the camera than the tree.
If we moved that man back towards the fence, his feet would be higher because Mooreman is looking uphill and his body would be smaller overall because of the added distance to the camera. Would this not replicate what we see in the photo of where Arnold may have been?
Mike
-
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-6811330180001581365
Plus yanking Mike's chain
Dear Amazon.com Customer,
We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated JFK And Sam: The Connection Between the Giancana And Kennedy Assassinations by Antoinette Giancana have also purchased Files on JFK: Interviews with Confessed Assassin James E. Files, and More New Evidence of the Conspiracy that Killed JFK by Wim Dankbaar. For this reason, you might like to know that Files on JFK: Interviews with Confessed Assassin James E. Files, and More New Evidence of the Conspiracy that Killed JFK will be released on September 1, 2008. You can pre-order yours at a savings of $10.18 by following the link below.
Files on JFK: Interviews with Confessed Assassin James E. Files, and More New Evidence of the Conspiracy that Killed JFK
Wim Dankbaar
List Price: $29.95
Price: $19.77
You Save: $10.18 (34%)
Release Date: September 1, 2008
Product Description
Contrary to the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin in Dealey Plaza at the time that President John F. Kennedy was shot, this account maintains that a gunman located on the grassy knoll delivered the final, fatal shot. Based on interviews with James E. Files, the alleged gunman, the chronicle proposes that the assassination was initiated by the CIA in collaboration with organized crime—Sam Giancana, Charles Nicoletti, and Johnny Roselli, in particular. Subsequent discoveries made through the assistance of a number of retired FBI agents also implicate two anti-Castro terrorists protected by prosecution from the Bush administration—Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles.
Yes Get your Hot off the Press copy of the Files Hoax TODAY.....(found in your local FICTION section).
The guy in that video Wim kinda reminded me of the lady in Romper room looking through the magic mirror.
"And I see the Easter Bunny, and Santa, and the tooth fairy, and James Files......"
-
...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?
I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society.
Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities.
If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it.
Unless there's another solution?
And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!?
Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was.
You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.
As near as I have been able to determine, there is little physical evidence that would indicate anything but a 6.5mm Carcano was fired that day.
Unless you are thinking it possible someone was plinkin away at the President with a .22 then a less than full velocity strike to the chrome would stand. Im sure Tom would know that as well as I do. I just add this for you, because you may not be aware of the impact energy of some projectile.
I also do agree with you that there was no damage to the chrome at Love Field. It had to have happened during the shooting event.
And the answer is:
Gee Tom, why was it again we were examining a Carcano Bullet??
-
...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?
I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society.
Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities.
If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it.
Unless there's another solution?
And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!?
Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was.
You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.
As near as I have been able to determine, there is little physical evidence that would indicate anything but a 6.5mm Carcano was fired that day.
Unless you are thinking it possible someone was plinkin away at the President with a .22 then a less than full velocity strike to the chrome would stand. Im sure Tom would know that as well as I do. I just add this for you, because you may not be aware of the impact energy of some projectile.
I also do agree with you that there was no damage to the chrome at Love Field. It had to have happened during the shooting event.
-
It has been brought to my attention that an email has been circulating amongst the group of members I have been in dispute with about the postings on the forum. This email claims that I have been behaving in an irrational way “bitching about the abuse received by moderators & administrators on forums generally” because of the “recent death of his wife."
It is true that my wife is terminally ill but she is still very much alive. My posts on the forum about the campaign against Len Colby and Evan Burton are based on logic and not on any distress I am feeling as the result of the death of a loved one.
I think this rumour is an example of the thinking of what I would call the “extreme conspiracy theorist”. They cannot grasp the idea of someone supporting people in public who they disagree with about “conspiracy theories” As I appeared in the past to be a conspiracy theorist, their must have been a cause for my “irrationality”. What better reason than the death of my wife.
One part of the email made me smile. It said: “I checked out his user account, and he seems to have retreated into penning (largely unread) arcane histories of the football team he's supported as a boy: West Ham.” In other words, my distress had resulted into a retreat into childhood.
John,
I will not comment on the rumor, and its intent.
I will say that I am sorry to hear of the health issues of your wife. My thoughts are with you.
Mike
-
Consider these:
An under-loaded round will sound like a pop, firecracker when fired.
The first shot sounded like a firecracker.
A diversion was created with the first shot hitting the chrome trim, this made the SS in the follow-up car look back and soon after the first round of shots came in from different directions.
Don
Yes in an attempt to kill a President, I would intentionally create a diversion, with a deliberate miss, rather than just shoot the target.
:lol: -
Nope!
It is not a "WAG"!
Tom,
Its gonna take me some time to chew this over. But it will be time well spent I am sure.
Do I notice a touch of the diplomat in those letters?
I am enjoying the read. Thank You again for sharing this with me.
Mike
-
[name=Karl Kinaski' post='152784' date='Aug 17 2008, 12:36 PM]
KK
Um gee I wonder.....
I suspect Pamela is correct, Altgens and Zappy are two different views.
The Altgens photo show sthat the limo has not quite reached Charles Brehm's location, so if one advances the Zapruder film forward just a little bit ... they will see Charles Brehm being passed. So the proof is that the Zapruder film matches Altgens #6 and its the interpreter who is wrong - as usual!
Bill Miller
Ups. These are the shadows of Brehm, his son, Moorman and Hill...I was wrong...and Bill Miller is right--- for the first time at this forum!
Certainly NOT the first time Bill was correct, and likewise without question not the first nor last time you will be wrong.
The alteration claims just get funnier and funnier, its like the Mad magazine of JFK Research!
Mike
-
The term 'hole' is not incorrect. It was a defect in the windshield. It was not, however, a 'through-and-through hole'.
In fact, there may be more than one defect on the windshield. James Hosty saw two pockmarks in the windshield when he viewed it prior to giving his WC testimony. Of course, I have tried to follow up on that by gaining access to the windshield at NARA, but so far have been denied access.
Pamela,
Wholeheartedly agree. No hole and exactly as you say, Just a defect. The evidence supports nothing more.
Mike
Evaela Glanges: Through and through bullet hole
Richard Dudman: Hole
Frank Cormier: Hole
Stavies Ellies: Through and through hole
H.R Freemann: Hole
Nick Prinzipe: Hole
Charles Taylor jr: hole
Abraham Bolden: Hole
Georg Whitaker: Hole
Hale Boggs: Hole
Mike Williams and Pamela McElwain Brown: No hole.
Possible scenario:
There was a hole, a trough and through bullet hole caused by a shot from the front, from the south knoll, i guess at Z 315 to 320, and it was a miss, because JFKs head moved backward "with considerable violence!", and Connally was not sitting anymore...(Note: Mr Plumlee said, he felt, there was one shot from the south Knoll)...
I am and I will be a "hole- supporter"... till hell freezes ...
Of course thats your decision , but can you offer any physical evidence? Where is this "hole" which should be readily apparent in the Parkland photo?
I suppose they swapped it out in a stop on the way to Parkland.
So far your ability to decipher evidence is batting 1000.
After reading your "analysis" of the shadows I eagerly wait your interpretation of the Parkland photo.
-
The thread is degenerating into a tit-for-tat slugfest, seeing who can make the most cutting reply. It is meant for specific complaints: against the forum, the moderators, the admins, or me. Others are to be directed in accordance with the forum rules, but "open season" still remains active towards me.
If you want to vent your bile against me, then do so here.
If you have complaints against the Forum, mods, or admins, then make them here and they will be referred onwards or dealt with here.
If you want to start bickering amongst yourself, then your posts will be made invisible.
Understood Evan, my apologies!
Mike
-
'Len Colby' wrote:
[...]
I really couldn’t care less if the person posting as Charles Drago is indeed Charles Drago or Drarles Chago or Charles Manson he contributes nothing of value to this part of the forum.After the Len 'Colby' Brazil exposure you're might testy these days.
Wrong as usual David, like lots of people I use a screen name on other forums. But this subject has been declared verboten so I’ll leave it at that.
...Look up the word reciprocity in a dictionary oh and speaking of a lack of originality, who just tried to pass off some old Redd Foxx jokes as his own?Well, not only did Old Redd Foxx live in the neighborhood, its known by many of his Las Vegas neighbors (also those that regularly sat around Las Vegas card rooms with him) are quick to note; whenever Redd appeared on television he could deliver just one 'original' line from his act: "he can smoke". That s it.
Now, where have you heard an original Redd 'Sanford' Foxx joke, Mr. Brazil? Wikipedia your best friend these days?
You do know that Foxx had a stand up career that long predated his appearance on TV? He was one of the funniest men ever to grace this planet, Drago is to Foxx what a kid who can barely do the doggy paddle is to Michael Phelps. I’ve been listening to his “party albums” since long before Al Gore invented the internet or I had any idea who you or Drago or anybody else here was. I doubt anybody else wrote this stuff it is my understanding that comics on the “Chitlin’ Circuit” wrote their own material.
Do yourself a favor listen to Foxx’s “Mother Frockers and Cork Soakers” and some of his other skits warning all of them violated the forum’s obscenity rule.
http://www.rhapsody.com/reddfoxx/thebestof...kerscorksoakers
Unfortunately that won’t play for folks like me who are outside the US, here is the 1st 30 seconds of the above mentioned routine.
http://sample.music.yahoo.com/radio/client...mp;sids=1273860
Len, me wrong? LMAO!... Redd *Sanford* Foxx lived a few doors from me, right off Eastern, for many years... back then Las Vegas was a small place. You knew he lived in Las Vegas, yes? You play poker, Len? Ya couldn't keep Redd out of the Dunes cardroom. He couldn't win either.
So tell us about Al Gore inventing the internet, Len. Seems to me your digging in the wrong cesspool again.....
p.s. I heard all the acts LIVE, Len. Some of them in the Dunes cardroom, twice....
I was not aware the Dunes supported Old maid, Crazy 8's and Go Fish.
Thats the only way I could figure you would be in those card rooms David...unless....of course.....you were serving drinks.
sitdown Sgt. Mikey... when I need you I'll ring... so, let me know when your in Vegas.... till then I was speaking with buddy Len Brazil Colby.
Btw, Sgt Mikey, I noticed you were nosing around some of John Ritchson old posts. Old JohnR could of taught you a few things Sgt. Mikey. Not getting your ducks in a row are ya? If so, good idea..... We're gonna want to hear from your sniper buddies as to LHO prowess. We've got a few lined up?
So, cocktail sir? Oh, you don't have a room key? Sorry! Ya don't pass go LMAO.....
David,
I doubt you know enough about anything to know who could teach who. But I do find amusement in your incoherent babble, do continue.
Your opening your mouth, and doubt is quickly fading.
Mike
-
The term 'hole' is not incorrect. It was a defect in the windshield. It was not, however, a 'through-and-through hole'.
In fact, there may be more than one defect on the windshield. James Hosty saw two pockmarks in the windshield when he viewed it prior to giving his WC testimony. Of course, I have tried to follow up on that by gaining access to the windshield at NARA, but so far have been denied access.
Pamela,
Wholeheartedly agree. No hole and exactly as you say, Just a defect. The evidence supports nothing more.
Mike
-
'Len Colby' wrote:
[...]
I really couldn’t care less if the person posting as Charles Drago is indeed Charles Drago or Drarles Chago or Charles Manson he contributes nothing of value to this part of the forum.After the Len 'Colby' Brazil exposure you're might testy these days.
Wrong as usual David, like lots of people I use a screen name on other forums. But this subject has been declared verboten so I’ll leave it at that.
...Look up the word reciprocity in a dictionary oh and speaking of a lack of originality, who just tried to pass off some old Redd Foxx jokes as his own?Well, not only did Old Redd Foxx live in the neighborhood, its known by many of his Las Vegas neighbors (also those that regularly sat around Las Vegas card rooms with him) are quick to note; whenever Redd appeared on television he could deliver just one 'original' line from his act: "he can smoke". That s it.
Now, where have you heard an original Redd 'Sanford' Foxx joke, Mr. Brazil? Wikipedia your best friend these days?
You do know that Foxx had a stand up career that long predated his appearance on TV? He was one of the funniest men ever to grace this planet, Drago is to Foxx what a kid who can barely do the doggy paddle is to Michael Phelps. I’ve been listening to his “party albums” since long before Al Gore invented the internet or I had any idea who you or Drago or anybody else here was. I doubt anybody else wrote this stuff it is my understanding that comics on the “Chitlin’ Circuit” wrote their own material.
Do yourself a favor listen to Foxx’s “Mother Frockers and Cork Soakers” and some of his other skits warning all of them violated the forum’s obscenity rule.
http://www.rhapsody.com/reddfoxx/thebestof...kerscorksoakers
Unfortunately that won’t play for folks like me who are outside the US, here is the 1st 30 seconds of the above mentioned routine.
http://sample.music.yahoo.com/radio/client...mp;sids=1273860
Len, me wrong? LMAO!... Redd *Sanford* Foxx lived a few doors from me, right off Eastern, for many years... back then Las Vegas was a small place. You knew he lived in Las Vegas, yes? You play poker, Len? Ya couldn't keep Redd out of the Dunes cardroom. He couldn't win either.
So tell us about Al Gore inventing the internet, Len. Seems to me your digging in the wrong cesspool again.....
p.s. I heard all the acts LIVE, Len. Some of them in the Dunes cardroom, twice....
I was not aware the Dunes supported Old maid, Crazy 8's and Go Fish.
Thats the only way I could figure you would be in those card rooms David...unless....of course.....you were serving drinks.
-
I hardly think if your intention was to grab your fanny with both hands that you would find success. Even if your change purse were to burst into flames.
I think most non-Americans know what part of the anatomy is being referenced here.
But I'm appalled that the Australian mod has not stood up and covered his own (US usage) fanny by protecting the eyes of all his fellow country-folk from this disgraceful (Oz usage) swear word which seeks to demean the female anatomy by equating it with (rhymes with) rankers and ricks of the lowest order.
-----------------------
Thus far I have refrained from comment, but I do have something to say.Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?
As I recall it, John Simkin requires real names and real photos for a reason.
You might want to check out threads on these forums regarding wikipedia and anonymity for good examples of why.
And doesn't Lancer - where you seem to have some sort of ... rank(?) insist on posters using their own (real) name?
Just for the record - I think Colby is indeed a real person. That doesn't necessarily mean he is the only person posting under his name. I have no knowledge of it one way or the other.
Greg,
I would agree I believe Colby is a real person. I would also agree with John that the concept is good, having a photo and name to attach humanity. It obviously does not work, but the concept is good.
As for the lingo.....thank god none have mentioned English Cigarettes......until now!
Best to ya Greg,
Mike
-
come to Lancer? LMAO! Now there is a third rate challenge....I doubt you'd find many gifted researchers there (other than for a visit). From my experience a liberal sprinkling of writer-researchers and a ton of Miller wannabe's.... aren't postings there down 40%?... So why there, of ALL places? We know, your flanks are exposed here, huh?
David,
I doubt you would find any that dont know the name of the President. Something you repeatedly struggle with. RIGHT?
Healey just to bring you up to speed its John FITZGERALD not Frances, as you so repeatedly called him. The researchers at Lancer are quite good, they even know WHO we are discussing.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...arch+this+group
What a laughing stock.
I love the way the news groups guys just completely discount you, as well they should.
So Sgt. Mikey, if this challenge came from Gary Mack, now THAT would be an entire different story. As it is, I doubt you'd find anyone crossing the street to debate a newbie such as your-self. Kinda like asking Mark Lane to debate Vinnie Bugliosi on the merits of the WCR -- man old Vin would need to consult those Reclaiming History ghost writers (that don't exist) in order to find out who Patrolman Tippit was....Not many calls for Bill Miller referrals when it comes to debate, but hang around though, 'bout another 5 or 6 years and you'll be seasoned....Gee Dave Ive been at this less than a year and seem to have no trouble at all debating you. When we can actually get you to talk about the case at all. So why not offer something? Come on....you can do it, I know you can. In 5 or 6 years....You can probably.....get the .....PRESIDENTS NAME RIGHT. Nice job there superstar.
Your single claim to fame is your Microsoft paint illustrations in TGZFH. If I were associated with such crap I would hide my head in shame. Hell even Fetzer will only claim to be an editor of that trash! Amazing that you wave it as a proud banner. Obviously not cognizant enough to know when you are being laughed at.
Paul, if this guy stays under Tom Purvis's wing for a year, he'll be ready for A ball, not the bigs, nor triple AAA just single A (minor league baseball for our cousins)
This is the best part. And so fitting. You and Rigby. That is so comical its almost sad. Ray Charles coming to the aid of Helen Keller.
Does the fun ever end?
-
Rigby has openly shown his contempt for the military, and by such, has exhibited he is a contemptuous person, which is the EXACT definition.
I love the idea you are "the military." Pomposity and self-delusion on the very grandest scale. But also instructive of a profound cultural division. In the UK, a guy who goes around boasting about his military record is regarded as a bore and a pratt. Quite right, too.
Yet Rigby goes on to add parameters to the definition of ranker and remains unscathed? What is wrong with this picture?Nothing: You just blew that eagerly sought Mods post. Which wasn't a million miles away from my intention.
Paul
Paul,
I see you affluence for attaching words and meaning is as elusive as your perceptions of evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. No wonder you struggle so.
I have never boasted about anything, as much as you would try and attach that to me. Your reference to an enlisted man as well as your fumbling to attach meaning to that, shows your contempt of the military Paulie. I had to add nothing nor take anything away for that to be clear.
I hardly think if your intention was to grab your fanny with both hands that you would find success. Even if your change purse were to burst into flames.
For the record please post a brag that I have made would you? Just once I would love to see you live up to your ridiculous claims. Or is this a case of your alligator mouth writing a check your tweety bird butt cant cash?
I would love to see you come to Lancer with some of your unsupported half baked claims. Here they ride, there you would be feasting on crow.
As for the word I used for you. I only refrain from using it again because Evan ask me nicely not to. But it was accurate, used properly and with a resourced definition. I added nothing to it nor took anything away. Since I used a legitimate word, in proper text, which was not and is not profanity, why would this ruin a chance at being a Mod if in fact I did pursue that position?
Clutching at straws is so unbecoming for you Paul. I myself feel your embarrassment.
Mike
-
I'm serious....
Surely this is a joke.
Charles,
Missing more periods than the Golden Girls! That was good I must confess!!!
One for the soup two for da cook!
Mike
-
Saving Ammo: Two birds with one bullet.
Since CE399 struck the right transverse process of the C7 vertebrae with sufficient force to fracture and fragment this protruding bone, as well as also having sufficient energy/force to cause deviation to the spinal column, prior to glancing to it's final resting place above the apex of the right lung, then it would be an error to attempt to calculate the energy/force level at which the bullet struck JFK in the back; struck the bone of the neck; as well as compute the energy and velocity of the small 0.9 grain cone-shaped/flat-based fragment (CE840 missing fragment) of lead that was sheared from the base of the bullet due to impact.
Dr. Baxter - It would be unlikely because the damage that the bullet would create would be---first its speed would create a shock wave which would damage a larger number of tissues, as in its path, it would tend to strike, or usually would strike, tissues of greater density than this particular missile did and would then begin to tumble and would create larger jagged--the further it went, the more jagged would be the damage that it created; so that ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit.
Mr. Specter - But relating the situation as I hypothesized it for you?
Dr. Baxter - Then it is perfectly understandable that this wound of exit was not of any greater magnitude than it was.
Mr. Specter - Dr. Baxter, is there a channel through which the bullet could have passed in the general direction which I have described to you where there would be very few tissues and virtually no tissues of great density?
Dr. Baxter - Yes; passing through the fascial plane which you have described, it could well not have these things happen to it, so that it would pass directly through--almost as if passing through a sheet of paper and the wound of exit would be no larger than the wound we saw.
Mr. Specter - What would the situation there be as to the shock wave which you have heretofore described?
Dr. Baxter - There would be a large amount of tissue damage which is not ordinarily seen immediately after a bullet has passed through. This is damage that is recognized several days later.
Mr. Specter - What causes the shock waves there, Doctor?
Dr. Baxter - This is just the velocity imparting pressure to surrounding tissues which damages them. It does not show, however, in the early course after a missile has passed through.
Mr. Specter - Well, would the shock waves have any effect upon the size, and nature of the hole of exit?
Dr. Baxter - No.
--------------------------------------------------
Dr. CARRICO - As I recall, Dr. Perry, and I talked and tried after---later in the afternoon to determine what exactly had happened, and we were not aware of the missile wound to the back, and postulated that this was either a tangential wound from a fragment, possibly another entrance wound. It could have been an exit wound, but we knew of no other entrance wound.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dr. JONES - The wound in the throat was probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter. There appeared to be no powder burn present, although this could have been masked by the amount of blood that was on the head and neck, although there was no obvious, amount of powder present. There appeared to be a very minimal amount of disruption of interruption of the surrounding skin. There appeared to be relatively smooth edges around the wound, and if this occurred as a result of a missile, you would have probably thought it was a missile of very low velocity and probably could have been compatible with a bone fragment of either--probably exiting from the neck, but it was a very small, smooth wound.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps someone who has the proper weapon; bullets; range access; as well as equipment, can determine for us the velocity of a tumbling WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet at approximately the following:
1. Fired from Model 91/38 Carcano rifle in relatively good condition.
2. Range from rifle to tree limb:--------75 to 85 feet.
3. Range to measurement of velocity determination:-------185 feet.
Tom,
I have not read that the spinal column was deviated. I will look into that as it could be significant. The damage to the traverse process alone would have been minimal, and barely made a nick in the bone. Im not altogether certain this would hamper the accuracy of the velocity of the bullet in regard to the depth of the wound.
Determining penetration is rather simple when we know what the required energy is for a single inch of penetration. Further, and this is something I am working on, this could be directly related to the size and surface resistance of the projectile. If it requires 30 ft lbs of energy for a 161 grain projectile to penetrate one inch, with a surface area of 33.183mm then the resistance of human tissue can be calculated and velocity projected for much smaller fragments.
It would boil down to the fragment having enough velocity to transit the remaining distance after the projectile stopped its forward movement.
This is also something I have been looking into in regard to another thread discussing the fragment in the thigh with Jim Root.
One thing to consider in the case of a fragment, is that it lacks the weight to surface area ratio of the projectile on a whole.
Mike
-
To test your Arnold claim without my spending a small fortune to go to Dealey Plaza, I ask that you take a verified known person standing back at the fence as Arnold was and show us where on the wall would his feet come to by using the same formula that you used on Arnold. Once again you have refused to cooperate and once again I find that very suspicious for if you could use Cummings to validate your Arnold claim ... there is no doubt that you would have done so the first dozen times I asked you to do it.
Bill Miller
Don't ask me to replicate an Arnold position in Moorman that does not exist
You tried it with Mike Brown..It was a failure...it can't be done.
Now if you can prove otherwise, feel free to tell the world.
Duncan MacRae
So I have to ask, why not just apply the same formula to Tony Cummins, that you did to Gordon Arnold? Would that not end this and forever put this issue to rest?
We obviously see that Tony Cummins is real. Bill appears to have a legit question, in asking you to do that. If everything is on the up and up, this is your opportunity to fully prove Bill wrong.
It would also prove you right! And using Bills own photo to boot!!
Mike
-
Funnily! Scotch vernacular. Im off to have tee martoonies.
-
We could do with a couple of more moderators and members are free to apply for this task. However, they will be judged by their record on this forum before being accepted. People who have been in the past been placed on moderation because of breaking forum rules will not be accepted as moderators.
Unfair enough.
I'm put in mind of a classic Groucho-ism: "I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member."
Here in the Great Democracy, voter roles routinely are purged of individuals considered likely to support Democratic candidates. One of the criteria used to justify removal: So-and-so is a convicted felon.
I mention this in asking for reconsideration.
Charles
Sorry Charles you failed the interview
And so the saga ends on a sad note. We are left needing a moderator, and Charles is cast into the soup kitchen!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
By the way!
In event you may have "missed" that discussion regarding the angle of entry of the bullet into JFK's back.
Merely because an end-over-end rotating projectile initially impacts with the bullet base on an upward angle of attack, does not mean that the resistence offered by the skin offers sufficient resistence to the rotating force, that it stops the projectile from driving itself downward into human flesh as a result of the impact.
For all things, there is a reason and an answer!
And, for most things, there is also a reasonable answer!
Tom,
A question.
Since the .9 grain fragment was a cast off from the impacting projectile, are we certain that it would have had the energy to have traveled through the remainder of the tissue and exited? Is it possible that this may have been a fragment from something different, a head shot perhaps?
It would seem to me that this fragments journey would be about 6 inches at least. If the main projectile traveled in to 2" that remains for the fragment to have traveled another 4" on its own to exit. Im not sure it would retain the velocity, due to its loss in mass, to achieve this.
This so far is the only real issue I have.
Mike
-
Recently Tom Purvis and I have been discussing the first shot, and examining some of the evidence from that shot.
We both do agree that the projectile penetrated to about 2" and that the projectile did not strike JFK at full velocity.
We have many witnesses who tell us that JFK was driven forward, and slightly left by this impact. The question led me to take a look and compare the kinetic energy transfer of a transiting shot, as compared to one that simply penetrated 2" and stopped.
First lets take a look at the transfer from a transiting shot.
The average bullet velocity was 2182 fps, the projectile weight is 161 grains. This gives us an impact energy of 1701 ft lbs. In the WC version this bullet struck no bone, which is significant in our analysis.
The only way a projectile can transfer its full force of momentum is if said projectile remains inside the target. In situations where the projectile passes through we see a very small amount of the energy transfered. In cases where it strikes no bone, and using full metal jacket bullets, the transfer is approximately .01% of the total kinetic energy of the bullet itself. In this particular case, that equates to .1701 ft lbs, not even 1/4 of a ft lb of force. This would cause no movement of notice at all in a target as heavy as the human toro.
Now to give full perspective we must also consider that at 2182 feet per second, the bullet would have passed through the body in less than .0006 seconds.
Now lets take a look at a shot, that for what ever reason would have penetrated to 2".
Tests conducted on the ammunition provide that it requires 30 ft lbs of force to penetrate human soft tissue to the depth of one inch. Since our depth here is 2" we then know that the bullet struck with 60 ft lbs of force. Given the weight of the projectile we know that it struck at 409 feet per second.
So then in the first case scenario we have .1701 ft lbs being transfered to the target, and in the latter instance we have 60 ft lbs transferring.
In the first case the impact energy would be insignificant enough to move the target torso any noticeable amount.
The second is a much different story.
60 ft lbs of energy would certainly move the torso, and noticeably so.
Sports physics tells us that the average energy of a human punch is in the 60-90 ft lb range. Of course we are not talking Rocky Marciano here (his punch delivered at times almost 1000 ft lbs!)
The bottom line is that had the bullet transited at full velocity, it is doubtful the witnesses would have observed the President being knocked forward and left. However with a non-transiting bullet in the 60 ft lb class, this would be very likely exactly what they would see.
This may also be considered in the wounding of Connally. But thats for another time.
Mike
-
Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.
In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.
Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?
You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?
Duncan MacRae
Ok Duncan,
So when did this fellow take his shot and where did it go?
IMO, the bullet from the 2nd floor struck the chrome trim, (direct hit) split into pieces. One piece hit the rearview mirror then hit the windshield. When the 2nd floor shot occured the president's limo was in the area of Johnson's car in the Altgens 6 photo.
Don
Don,
What ballistic evidence can you offer to support that? Or is this simply a guess?
Might want to read what Frazier had to say about this. It was not and could not have been a direct hit.
Mike
Or is this simply a guess?
Just in case you have not caught on, that is how much of the JFK assassination research is conducted.
With that stated, I will now pull out my OUIJI Board and Crystal ball and briefly discuss the two remaining shots which also struck JFK (in the head).
Tom,
Nope no guess. The Carcano at the average velocity yields 1701 ft lbs of energy from an intact 161 grain projectile. The trim covering on the limo, as in the replica is about 1/16" thick and the steel mullion under that was basically 1/8" walled reenforced(had to be with a convertable) tubing.
The trim itself was not steel, but chrome covered tin. The steel underneath was not hardened.
If we look into these metals, and the required 1/4 inch punch pressure of the same, we can, and would see, that the projectile had to be at less than full velocity. Full velocity would have yielded a complete penetration, and a far more significant amount of damage to the chrome strip.
I think that Frazier was pretty well on the nail when he swung that hammer.
Mike
The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Ok, so I have to ask this. I think that we do know if the man in the black shirt backed towards the fence, that he would become smaller, and his feet would rise because of Mooremans uphill angle. So there is no reason to believe that he would not replicate the Arnold position UNLESS he could not back far enough from the wall before hitting the fence. It is supposed that Arnold was between the wall and the fence if I remember correctly. So are you saying in effect, that the man in the black shirt would just run out of runnin room to replicate Arnolds position?
Mike