Mike Williams

Let me then rephrase.....Just because he was never observed practicing does not mean he never did.

Hell I practice often....and am never observed.

Mike

The fact that nobody saw him practice doesn't mean he never did, but still there is no evidence or even a witness to Oswald shooting a gun after leaving USSR.

The one man who did match the TSBD assassin's marks had plenty of practice.

It was never determined if the TSBD shooter used that rifle, used the scope, ever alligned the scope, ever practiced with any rifle, ever used the rifle before, where the ammo was obtained, what became of the rest of the box of ammo, and where the rifle's shoulder strap came from.

Determining the answer to any of those questions would be significant.

BK

Bill,

I would whole heartedly agree with you. However the lack of answers to these questions carries the same circumstantial weight. The questions in whole, answered or not, would not convict nor acquit.

Donahue was given little practice before the event.

I have held for some time that all the tests were a bit askew. A proper test would allow some firing at still targets (as Marina alleges Lee did) , some cycling of the weapon(as Marina alleges Lee did) and then ONE SINGLE attempt at the event.

We can not replicate stress to the level needed so that of course would have to be waved.

I would then say, or dare say, that no one would ever complete the event in the alloted 5.6 seconds. However this does not point to a conspiracy, as the WC itself allows that there could have been up to 7.9 seconds even for a single shooter.

Now I see Bernice is posting so I may need to nap, and look for my digital bookmark to form the energy and accuracy for a reply!

Best to you Bill,

Mike

Let me then rephrase.....Just because he was never observed practicing does not mean he never did.

Hell I practice often....and am never observed.

Mike

Mike,

I think you're swallowed the line that was first started by Gerald Posner, about the shots taking longer than 5-6 seconds. This is simply not possible, for a number of reasons. The original critics came up with the 5.6 second figure by slowing down the Zapruder film, calculating the number of frames per second and watching the reactions inside the limousine. While there is still debate about exactly when the first and second shots were fired, we are only taking about a second or less difference, and since we know that the shooting stopped at frame 313 (despite what a Tom Purvis might claim), we are left with a time frame that is very close to that 5.6 second figure.

Actually the WC even tells us the event could be longer WCR117. If the Willis photo is really at 202, and the shot was the cause of that photo, then some simple tests show that the shot was likely fired at 195. If the last shot were at 313 then that is 118 frames, or 6.44 seconds. Personally I believe this is the case. However as I said I am listening to what Purvis has to say, and much does make sense.

I have heard others claim that they could get off 3 shots with "some accuracy" as well. On a particularly bad "Hard Copy" t.v. show back in the early 1990s, Lee's brother Robert Oswald was trotted out to make this exact claim (this was just one of the many attempts network television made at that time to counter the influence of Oliver Stone's "JFK"). What is clear is that neither you, nor Robert Oswald, nor the foremost experts the government could find (and yes, every shooter ever used in these recreations, by the government or CBS, possessed a level of proficiency with a rifle that Lee Harvey Oswald never came close to) ever have done what this "rather poor shot" is alleged to have done. If the shots are so easy, and the Mannlicher Carcano was not the old, unreliable and half-broken weapon the original critics said it was, then it ought to be simple to trot out some sharpshooters to accomplish exactly what Oswald allegedly did.

As for this Donohue guy you mention, I'm not sure what you're talking about. CBS performed tests designed to "recreate" the assassination during their 1975 special documentary. The conditions were not exact (shorter distance, as much time as needed for the first shot, and the shooters were all top experts), but still no one duplicated Oswald's fantastic performance. In fact, Walter Cronkite came up with one of the most memorable lines of all time in an effort to "explain" this failure. Cronkite acknowledged that none of CBS's shooters had done what Oswald purportedly did, but then closed with a bit of irrefutable logic; "This was not a normal circumstance- Oswald was shooting at a president" (may not be exact quote, but that was essentially what he said).

Actually that was for the 67 Documentary, a 4 night special. This was the one where they used the 60 foot tower and recreated the moving target rather exactly. A shooter named Donahue did in fact complete this feat.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The difficulty in the shots is the timing with which they try to cram them into. This is what causes the difficulty for all who have tried.

By the way I might add Oswald would have been a marginal shot by Marine standards, but better than average among the general population....so calling him a rather poor shot is not accurate.

By the way Simmons testimony about the rifle shows it to be quite consistent, for someone with Marine Marksmanship skills this would have been a sufficent weapon to complete the task.

If you would like a copy of that 67 documentary I would be glad to copy and send you one if you provide the mailing address and information, you can of course contact me privately about that.

MikeWilliams@JFKLancer.com

Mike,

As you know by now ... David Healy is merely a loud mouth who probably knows less than anyone one on this forum when it comes to JFK's assassination. This is a guy who has bitched for years that the Zapruder film was being kept from him so he couldn't show that it was altered. Only when pressed we found out the screwball had not so much as made a request to examine the film. Instead of working on his request, he blesses us with idiotic remarks about people who don't agree with him as being lone nutters, needing to get on the varsity, boys, sons, and other trolling remarks. When something comes up relating to the actual shooting of JFK - Healy will ask beginner questions like 'Duh ... how do we know when the first shot was fired in relation to the witnesses statements?' (end) If being a total boob when it comes to offering anything intelligent to say was a crime ... Healy would have been hung a long time ago.

Bill Miller

Bill,

I suspect that this might be well the case, except for one flaw. It would have to be someone else who tied the knot. I am sure David is still peddling about in velcro shoes and wearing a digital watch. Complicated things such as shoe laces and clock hands probably befuddle him!

I just tried to give you a ring if you have time give me a call.

Mike

hahahahahhahah NICE!

This fun friday thing could be fun!

Mike

Because it was possible.

It was "possible" that JFK's neck extended 4 inches below the bottom of his

clothing collars?

Was he part giraffe?

Cliff,

If I have not made it clear enough, my apologies. There is nothing in the ballistics nor physics that says it is impossible.

So it was "possible" that a bullet that struck JFK on a downward trajectory

in the vicinity of his 3rd thoracic vertebra (consistent with the holes in the

clothes, the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet diagram, the FBI autopsy

report, the wound diagrams of several autopsy witnesses, the sworn statements

of several autopsy witnesses, and the graphic descriptions of the wound by

witnesses who were not sworn), ranged upward in his body to exit his throat,

then -- in mid-air! -- changed course again and descended into Connally?

Perhaps you could demonstrate this incredible event?

Body position and other factors of the targets have to be considered in its probability, of course.

Do the holes in the clothes and the mountain of corroborating evidence of

the T3 back wound constitute "other factors"?

Shouldn't these "other factors" be considered prior to your pronouncements

concerning the "possibility" of the SBT?

But this does not change the fact that given the density of the human tissue and

the ability of the round, it was in fact possible.

But given the physical evidence we can actually link to JFK, it was in fact

impossible, unless you have a satisfactory answer to the problem of the

SBT requiring a drastic mid-air change of trajectory.

There is no evidence whatsoever that JFK was struck in the back with a FMJ round.

None.

The round was in fact capable of this feat.

But was it capable of such an extreme change of trajectory in mid-air?

Was this shot probable......of course not.

Mike

It was impossible given the physical evidence.

I'm always struck by the willingness of folks to ignore the actual physical

evidence in this case.

Of course all the things you mention hold weight, but, they do not remove the possibility, they remove probability. Bullets can often be unpredictable creatures. The only thing that would rule out possibility is to show that the physics and ballistics do not work.

Again the projectile and cartridge were capable of the task.

I actually saw a human hit in the shoulder with the exit wound behind the right knee......So by your logic it would be impossible and yet it was possible. Now what are the odds of that happening again? Slim to none, which of course limits its probability.

I am amazed at the amount of people who cant distinguish possibility from probability...

At any rate, I do not believe that the bullet penetrated to more than 2" so your preaching to the choir.

I just sent you a PM in regard to this matter as well Cliff.

Cheers,

Mike

What physical properties (re trajectory, etc) preclude the Dal-Tex bldg as a "sniper nest position?

For which shot? As well as from what position/location.

Last time that I looked, it was a pretty big building.

knowing what's currently known concerning (the autopsy and trajectory) wounds on Kennedy and Connally's body. Would the current SBT work, if say 3 rifle shots as described in the SS/FBI reenactments and/or Mr. West plats, have originated from, say, the 3rd floor on up in Dal-Tex building?

Fair & logical question!

Shot#1: Had this shot been fired from the approximate SW corner of the building, then the bullet could have gone through JFK and thereafter struck JBC in the right shoulder.

However! Due to the slight left-to-right trajectory, the bullet would not have exited from JBC's right side mid-chest/under the breast nipple.

Instead, it would have exited farther to the right side of the arm (from the point of entry) as looking at JBC's back.

(assuming JBC sitting and facing forward.

Were JBC turned to his far right for some unknown reason, then yes, the bullet could have struck in the rear armpit area and exited below the nipple in the front chest.

If one moved farther North in the building, along the west wall, then the JFK/JBC wound alignment becomes considerably more in correct alignment with JBC sitting and facing forward.

Questions on #1?

"If one moved farther North in the building, along the west wall, then the JFK/JBC wound alignment becomes considerably more in correct alignment with JBC sitting and facing forward."

vicinity of the fire escape?

Correct!

http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/ike5big.jpg

But with my "credibility problem", what would I know about it??????

P.S. One could not move too far up the North Wall, as well as they would have to be high enough to avoid this, the overhead street light which most seem to have forgotten about.

Which by the way has a relationship with "Point A"!

Tom,

If this were the case would not the shooter be firing directly over the SS follow up car? From that 3rd floor what would the declining angle of the rifle be?

Interestingly, if we replicate JBC wounds at 223 our shooter is about 8 inches over the county records roof......Give or take 1/2 degree. And accepting the standard that the wound declines at 25 and right to lefts at 20-23.

The reason I ask about the angle for the 3rd DT is the SS follow up car windshield height is minimum 54". Can we clear a shot from there. I know the second floor hits the glass about 8" below the top.

Oh yes and I will be writing an apology for the credibility crack shortly. Your ideas are far more sound than they appeared once I sorted out the explanations.

Mike

One of the few things I liked about Lancer before they banned me was their Friday humour thread.

In the Badgeman Twins thread on this Forum, Charles suggested my analysis added more dopplegangers to the mystery.

I don't think there's any mystery in my analysis Charles

Duncan MacRae

In looking through JFK photos, and in keeping with the spirit, I believe I found a photo of Miles and Duncans love child!

Because it was possible.

It was "possible" that JFK's neck extended 4 inches below the bottom of his

clothing collars?

Was he part giraffe?

Cliff,

If I have not made it clear enough, my apologies. There is nothing in the ballistics nor physics that says it is impossible. Body position and other factors of the targets have to be considered in its probability, of course. But this does not change the fact that given the density of the human tissue and the ability of the round, it was in fact possible.

The round was in fact capable of this feat. Was this shot probable......of course not.

Mike

Wim,

Just because I do not believe the back wound transited JFK does not mean that it could not have.

That's not the point. You said the single bullet theory is possible. How is it possible if you accept that the bullet did not transit through JFK? After all, the basis for the SBT is that it transited through JFK. You just said that you don't believe that it transited through JFK. So why did you say the SBT is possible?

Wim

I notice on your forum Wim you have made a post called "A discussion from the Education Forum" Yet typical of your con artist way you only posted a small portion of the conversation....Your portion, and not the portion where I proved what a ridiculous load of crap you and Files are trying to sell.

How typical of you.

Obviously the word honor means little to you, nor does the damage your ilk do to the rest of the community. I hope your total loss of credibility and self respect was worth the dime.

You really should have done some research before you wrote the check, have you considered stop payment? Obviously you stopped logic, stopped common sense and stopped having any sense of honesty....

Mike

I just tossed that out there as an example of one Rigbys powers of observation and deduction.....non existent.

Dear, dear, touch tetchy tonight, Mikey. No one to censor over at Lancer?

Always nice to meet someone with common sense.

Two hacks for a neocon puppet and war criminal met on a forum. One said to the other...

Interesting Rigby, can you post just one example of me censoring anyone....or is this just another of your imaginary ideas?

Put up Rigby show one post to one person I censored.

Of course you can not.

We dont censor folks there....we simply dont allow morons admittance. I wish Simkin felt that way, but I sure bet you are glad he does not.

Mike

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

OK, now that I've seen it, I think it's safe to say, the accusation of "video trickery" in the video feeds of the WTC 1 and 2 attack and collapse, is one of the more desperate and imaginative claims made. Which is saying something.

The Verrazano Bridge is said to be about 2-1/2 miles away from the WTC (in the feed). The bridge is about two miles long (roughly). That means that pretty much any change in perspective in the video streams for 9/11 will provide a different view of the bridge. The youtube presentation tries to imply that the bridge is far enough away that these changes in perspective (along with others images in the screen) prove "image layering", when all that it should mean is a change in the location of the camera.

I'm not a photography expert, but I think its safe to say that minor changes in perspective, keeping the WTC in full frame, would result in the observed changes, instead of being, as these people claim, proof of fakery. Besides, what would be the point? That the whole attack was a put up job? That the tens of thousands of people who saw the second plane hit were deluded? That the masses of film on the second strike were all faked? And everyone involved is in on it? Sure, great, In that case, you should know that the Verrazano Bridge does move, and you can purchase it, take it home with you, and enjoy it, for a very reasonable fee.

This is definitely one of the more entertaining of the 9/11 claims.

Peter,

Im starting to like you more and more all the time!

This is about as hokey as the claims get....but some...ah hem......will still believe them....its that keen observation and deduction we spoke of earlier you see?

Mike

hahahahahaha

Some kind of Lancer virus, it would appear. Signals an extremely unfunny remark. Very strange, all the same.

Rigby good thing you have a sense of humor...not a great alternative for common sense.....but a virtue just the same!

Have you been inhaling chemtrails again?

My teeth are starting to hurt

Since there is really no proof that "chemtrails' even exist, I would have to say no.

Now THAT'S sarcasm!

BOOYA mathew! Nicely done!

hahahahahaha That maybe the quote of the day!

Great observation. I wonder why Rigby did not come to that conclusion?

Simple - I don't do apologias for war criminals.

Best to you, too, Mikey!

Well that clears that up! Any chance of explaining?

I just tossed that out there as an example of one Rigbys powers of observation and deduction.....non existent.

Always nice to meet someone with common sense.

be well Peter!

Mike

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Haven't got to the end yet, but the out of synch visual and sound streams between ABC and CBS may be due to the digital delay in one or more of their satellite feeds or the difference in either digital delay or compression between the two signals being slightly out of adjustment. News steams that are digitally broadcast have built in digital delays to allow for signal multiplexing and compression, and then decoding and synching with other streams, like at an anchor desk in a different location. The digital delay should also require adjustment during a new broadcast, or an out of synch conditon may result (just as observed). The digital delay also allows for signal encryption and communications protection. This is a normal condition in digital communications.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=113590

I haven't looked at the 17 minutes from the end piece yet.

Peter,

You should never have mentioned the audio and video synch issue.....Rigby would never have noticed.

Mike

Pamela,

If the shooters were trained snipers, this would have been a one shot event. Oswald would have been fatally framed(if not actually guilty), and we would not even be discussing it.

What IS the correct amount of time? Yes it has been done by a man named Donahue during the CBS recreation, but that is beside the point. I suspect the reason more have not completed this event in the official time, is because the official time is flawed. The official timing of the shots was built from necessity, and not evidence.

re-writing assassination related evidence Sgt. Williams? Gotta' open & close the bolt, re-acquire the target and pull the trigger, twice, in 5.6 seconds.

What is not beside the point is simple, more than one known military sniper with "confirmed" kills says the alleged Oswald gig is impossible to re-create in fact, and recreation. Frankly if the Lone Nut-WCR purists thought they could re-create Oswald's shooting feat, they would of by know. We'd of seen the the results YEARS ago...

How many of the top NRA Expert Marksman tried this feat and failed? Forget the CBS nonsense....

What I see here is simple Sgt. Williams, you're attempring to sell 8-12 second scenario (instead of 5.6 seconds). If the WCR seems uncomfortable for some lone Nutters, let's invent a new time frame, that about sum it up? Do you have a cite for this 8-12 second scenario (I'm curious)? Reminds me of Gerald Ford moving an entrance wound 4 inches. oopsee

David,

Perhaps you can offer some proof that the shooting event DID happen in 5.6 seconds? There is only one shot that can be determined to a precise time. Of course it would not, and does not surprise me that you would be fooled by the WC time line. I expected as much from someone of your obvious knowledge.

I would suspect the reason many state it is impossible, is because they are holding to the old time frame. You are aware that this feat actually has been recreated aren't you?

One good thing to note though, it is actually good to see you say something that relates to the assassination, and not just yammering away about nothing at all.

Mike

Old time-frame? WCR "OLD" time frame? Explain to us when the WCR was amended with a "NEW" time frame, Sgt. Williams. And Sgt Williams, have you heard of the Zapruder film?

In the spirit of this thread Sgt. Williams, In simple terms, so even non-veterans AND military vet's can understand, IMHO, I forgot more about this assassination than you'll probably ever know... and Marine Sgt Williams unless you can deliver a factual accounting regarding any recreation that duplicated JFK's wounds, in the time alloted per the WCR, including proper heights, distances and wind conditions (not to mention the stress of shooter unknowables). I certainly hope you're not pinning all you hopes on the Australian connection regarding the "gaffer-tape shooting platform blowing around in the wind" re-creation, are you marine Sgt Williams?

What I see here is simple Sgt. Williams, you're attempting to sell a new 8-12 second scenario (instead of 5.6 seconds). Its long been apparent to us if that IF WCR findings seem a bit uncomfortable for certain Lone Nutters, they simply prefer to change or invent a new time frame, does that sum up your position? Do you have a cite for this 8-12 second scenario (I'm curious)? Reminds me of Gerald Ford moving an entrance wound 4 inches. oopse

Your experience shooting the manual bolt operated MC, please?

D. Healy

David,

Look into a man named Donahue for openers who recreated the shooting on a moving target for the CBS inquiry.

I would say first off that if you have me categorized as a lone nut, you know far less than you think you do. No real surprise there either.

I believe the HSCA changed the time frame, you have heard of them haven't you David? And even their assessment is just an opinion, as there are no final and assertive facts in regard to the shooting event which conclusively pin down each shot. So the WC HSCA and in fact everyone here is speculating.

Now as for an amended time frame from the WCR....Page 117 tells us that the shooting could have taken 7.6 seconds or more. I guess that was the part that you forgot....

MC experience, well I guess I have about 250 rounds down range with it now. Which when firing left handed operating the bolt with my right and not breaking the weld, I can get off 3 shots in under 5 seconds. With SOME degree of accuracy.

What was your experience with the Carcano again? Have you even held one?

Yes David I have heard of the Zapruder film, and should I desire to see it, I KNOW just who to petition, which is something obviously that eludes you. Have you finished that request yet?

If you insist on using my rank, please use it properly. It is Master Gunnery Sergeant Williams. But for ease in spelling (which you may require) you can call me Mike.

Now in regard to heights, the tower Donahue fired from was 60 ft., the distances equal to the limo travel in 5.6 seconds, being visible after coming out from the tree to the head shot. Windage.....is.....funny.....are you so uneducated that you really think windage would play a role in such a short distance of firing?

Just for the record, as it is apparent you know little about my thoughts, I believe the shooting event was in 6.4 seconds. I may also add that in listening to Tom Purvis, and some of what he says makes perfect sense to me, I maybe changing my position a bit.

Oh yes....if Mike is to difficult TOP is acceptable!

Now as for you forgetting more than I will ever know...I would ask you if the assassination you are referring to if that of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.....or John Frances Kennedy.

First and foremost one has to know WHOM was assassinated, which you apparently struggle with as well. (Thank you for that golden nugget news groups)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...arch+this+group

Apparently one of the things you forgot what the Presidents middle name....nicely done. Mongolism must be difficult to overcome. However it is great to see that since you lack research ability and common sense that you can still offer us something in the way of comedic relief.

Mike

Lam-basting does seem to be his specialty, hes efficient at it and is making short work of many here. Whats with the sweetie thing? Bit O sugar in the tank?

Now Michael,

This guy couldn't make short work of the "Minute Waltz."

It likely takes him an hour-and-a-half to watch "60 Minutes."

As for "sweetie" -- consider it an homage to David Guyatt.

Charles,

That was great! I dont often agree with you, but....I have to hand it to you....your ALMOST as funny as Lamson!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMVUKPDZw4

Oh yes, this is obviously the "Truth". The girl actually says, "I was running from Georgian Troops, not Russian Troops. I'd like to thank the Russian Troops...", her first and only point to straighten out any confusion as to who is doing what. No chance she was prepped for that.

I doubt if the truth will be understood for at least a couple of weeks. Russia has used the art of crisis creation to justify military action too many times in the past, and they are way too good at it. There is also no possible way that Russia hadn't planned for the mobilization and invasion of Georgia in advance of Georgia's "attack" on South Ossetia.

When will the spin doctoring end and information that can actually be objectively viewed begin?

Peter,

Great observation. I wonder why Rigby did not come to that conclusion?

Best to you Peter,

Mike

<Removed>

Well good for you.

In any case we must take your posts with a huge grain of salt. After all how do we know that you are who you say you are? For all we know you are some super secret double agent( or maybe even part of a...team) sent to post things designed to make CT's look quite awful. Thats the clear impression I get from your posts.

Whats your real name again? Just WHO do you work for?

Lam-pooning is not your strong point.

When you get one, please share it with your otherwise adoring public, sweetie.

I herein grant you full permission to accuse me of lying.

But you'd best be able to prove it.

Sweetie.

Lam-basting does seem to be his specialty, hes efficient at it and is making short work of many here. Whats with the sweetie thing? Bit O sugar in the tank?

Bullet Weight Accountability!

Tom, is there a document indicating William Sullivan removed or had someone remove the bullet segment from the FBI ballistics laboratory? I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached.

Thanks.

Roy Bierma

Since he was still living at last account:

Robert Frazier

1704 Oak Lane

McLean, VA 22101

Tel: 703-533-2877

Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us.

And, yes! There is a document!

Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached.

It may not pay much to be "doubtful", but it certainly keeps one from looking completely foolish at times.

Thomas H./aka "Doubting" Thomas.

Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached.

Now! A truly "professional" doubter would have, as well as should have, asked exactly by what means one determined the width of the flat base of the cone-shaped; non-irregular lead fragment which disappeared.

Same Answer:

Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us.

During this time in his testimony Frazier sure choses his words carefully!

Mike

Unless somewhat like myself by now, he did the same many years ago!

He knows much which he has never openly revealed.

When one discusses the subject matter correctly, they can not help but walk away knowing this.

Kind of like his little "game" played in the Shaw trial testimony.

Tom,

I looked back for the weight accountability, and can not see the docs you posted so I will just ask.

Was the .67 grains in your prior calculations the weight of the copper cover for the base of the bullet?

158.6=CE399

.9= the "missing" fragment

.67=??

How would this relate to the overall weight if the copper bottom is not accounted for?

I do recall that this bullet could have weighted as much as 163 grains per Fraziers +/- 2 grains.

Mike

Bullet Weight Accountability!

Tom, is there a document indicating William Sullivan removed or had someone remove the bullet segment from the FBI ballistics laboratory? I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached.

Thanks.

Roy Bierma

Since he was still living at last account:

Robert Frazier

1704 Oak Lane

McLean, VA 22101

Tel: 703-533-2877

Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us.

And, yes! There is a document!

Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached.

It may not pay much to be "doubtful", but it certainly keeps one from looking completely foolish at times.

Thomas H./aka "Doubting" Thomas.

Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached.

Now! A truly "professional" doubter would have, as well as should have, asked exactly by what means one determined the width of the flat base of the cone-shaped; non-irregular lead fragment which disappeared.

Same Answer:

Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us.

During this time in his testimony Frazier sure choses his words carefully!

Mike

Oh yes the correct labeling for your 9mm Taurus Ammunition should be "Girl buwwets" HAHAHA!

Spehwing is awways impawtint - it would be "girwie buwwets!" Still wouldn't want to be at the pointy end of one going fast tho'!

Duke,

I agree no pointy end for me! If I have to get shot again, I prefer those suction cup darts. Them real buwwets hurt to dang much!

Mike

Pamela,

If the shooters were trained snipers, this would have been a one shot event. Oswald would have been fatally framed(if not actually guilty), and we would not even be discussing it.

What IS the correct amount of time? Yes it has been done by a man named Donahue during the CBS recreation, but that is beside the point. I suspect the reason more have not completed this event in the official time, is because the official time is flawed. The official timing of the shots was built from necessity, and not evidence.

re-writing assassination related evidence Sgt. Williams? Gott'a open close that bolt, re-acquire the target and pull the trigger twice, in 5.6 seconds.

What is not beside the point is simple, more than one known military sniper with "confirmed" kills says Oswald gig is impossible to re-create. Frankly if the Lone Nut-WCR purists thought they could re-create Oswald's shooting feat, they would of. We'd of seen the the results YEARS ago...

You're selling 8-12 seconds (instead of 5.6 seconds) for the JFK assassination shooting feat. Do you have a cite for that (I'm curious)? Reminds me of Gerald Ford moving an entrance wound 4 inches. oopsee

David,

Perhaps you can offer some proof that the shooting event DID happen in 5.6 seconds? There is only one shot that can be determined to a precise time. Of course it would not, and does not surprise me that you would be fooled by the WC time line. I expected as much from someone of your obvious knowledge.

I would suspect the reason many state it is impossible, is because they are holding to the old time frame. You are aware that this feat actually has been recreated aren't you?

One good thing to note though, it is actually good to see you say something that relates to the assassination, and not just yammering away about nothing at all.

Mike

I must admit some befuddlement about this also and would like to know more. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of this list before. What is the source for this? Is it in the Warren Commision record? Are the other items referred to in this list in evidence? [EDIT On second look I see that the other two cards DO refer to items actually in evidence] If the items referred to in this list [card] are not in evidence, how and where was this list discovered? Do we know where the "two boxes" were found?

One odd thing about this is that the ammo found in the Sixth Floor was not Italian but was manufactured by Western Cartridge Co. no?

I imagine that a Western Cartridge Co. ammo box would not say "Italian" anywhere on the box, so at first blush this does not sound like the same brand of ammo found in the TSBD. The card reads TWO EMPTY BOXES MARKED "6.5 ITALIAN AMMUNITION" which sounds like whoever made this card is referring to two empty boxes on which someone had ADDED the "mark" or notation "6.5 Italian ammunition" for identification purposes. It is not clear that the mark "6.5 Italian ammunition" is actually from the original manufacturers label.

I am sure some of the early critics pointed out that the Warren Commission could find no evidence that Lee Oswald EVER bought or possessed ammo for the Carcano, so this item is indeed a curiosity.

I came across that in the Commission Documents. I will try to find the exact location for you. I also found the "Italian" to be a bit curious, but have not found one dog gone word about that either!

It would seem that the ammo boxes were found at the Paines home. Given the number sequence and the other items on the list, this would seem to make sense. Ruth Paine lives not far from me perhaps I can give her a call and see if she recalls anything about this.

There is a typewritten list containing these items as well: CD1554/75. This lists a series of "FBI Exhibits" without indicating their origin. The 5/28/64 Gemberling Report (CD1066/96) is a similar list. Their origin seems to be indicated in CD205/97, which says that Irving resident William J. Honea found them "in the vicinity of an abandoned gravel pit" and contacted the Dallas Sheriff's Office about them. The report says that the boxes "apparently at one time contained 6.5 caliber [sic] Italian ammunition." It does not specifically state that Deputy Sheriff B.J. Courson, to whom Honea "furnished" the empty boxes, in turn furnished them to the FBI or whether he was simply reporting that someone had furnished them to him, but the coincidence of the FBI being informed of two empty cardboard boxes "apparently" (whatever made that "apparent" is not indicated either) containing the ammo at one time, and then having two empty cardboard boxes marked as 6.5 "Italian ammunition" seems too unlikely to think that they were not the same items.

I agree that "Italian ammunition" as a manufacturer's label name is unlikely, just like .303 Enfield rounds would not likely be labeled as "English ammunition" or 9mm rounds for my Taurus aren't likely to be labeled "Brazilian ammunition." Okay, so the last one's a little far-fetched, but the point is that ammo isn't likely to be called anything according to a country of origin of the weapon(s) that might fire it, unless Italian rifles were the only guns that fired 6.5mm rounds, which I can't imagine to be the case simply based on the idea that without nearly everyone owning an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, the rounds would tend to be as scarce as hen's teeth. There must have been enough rifles that used them for gun shops to even bother carrying them, which we know at least two or three around Dallas did ... or a lot of M-C rifles in Dallas.

It doesn't seem that the fact that this item is interspersed between items generally attributed to having been found at the Paine residence is necessarily meaningful, especially given the likelihood that if they had been found among LHO's effects it would have served as proof of his having bought such ammo, which proof nobody claimed to have had. Whether it was intended to look that way is another story.

Duke,

The appearance of this being found at the Paine residence is exactly what I was thinking. Im still digging into this a bit, but information is scarce.

Oh yes the correct labeling for your 9mm Taurus Ammunition should be "Girl buwwets"

HAHAHA!

Mike