Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
Mark!
Now that you are pretty much through the "re-learning" curve, I am going to provide a few items which continue to surface as I dig back for other information.
It is hoped that some of this now begins to come into perspective.
Tom
Tom,
I assume by Mr. Williams that you were referring to me? My dad does not visit this board, so Mike will do just fine.
The only thing I have ever held was that the SBT was possible, if the conditions were right. We of course know the conditions were not such to allow this to have happened.
We also know that given the descriptions of the wounds, that JBC and JFK were wounded at two separate times.
The single bullet theory was is and always will be crap.
Mike
And, you have clearly demonstrated the ability to recognize "crap"; as well as either take it or dish it out if necessary.
My "tam" as my mother always called it is off to you and your research abilities.
So! Irrelevant as to whether you can or can not shoot, your work(s) have certainly passed my testing.
For whatever that may or may not be worth.
Sit back and enjoy the ride, but feel free to yell BS loud and clear at any time, or even merely ask questions.
Tom.
Guess that I am now "Mr. Purvis", as my WWII Navy Vet dad just passed away a couple of months ago.
Tom,
Sorry to hear about your Dad.
If your ever down the Florida way, look me up. I have about 1500 open meters here we can knock some of the rust off on, and then of course re lubricate after with a few cold beers.
Mike
Thanks!
Currently attempting to recover (financially) from a recent trip of taking Barbara's three grandchildren down to feed Mickey Mouse, etc; for a week.
At my age, consumption of beer would require wearing of a diaper with it's effect on me.
Most of my shooting is relegated to attempting to pop the heads off swimming water moccasins down at one of my ponds.
Other than the snake gun and the six various Carcano's, I don't own or even shoot much of anything anymore.
May make a trip down on some antique buying trip some time soon, so let me know how far down you are.
Tom
A Diaper! maybe well stick to light beer then.
Im actually right by mickey, near Orlando.
I might just have a few things around here we can use to shoot a bit. I even have two MC's maybe we can try to replicate the SBT!
Im sure with a bit of diggin I can find that M82 Barrett as well. You have not lived until you tried that one!
I wanted to ask you something about the JBC wounding. I read it in another thread, and well.....I can hide my own Easter eggs sometimes, and cant find it now.
What z timeframe, and declining rifle angle did you attach to the JBC wounding?
Mike
-
Mark!
Now that you are pretty much through the "re-learning" curve, I am going to provide a few items which continue to surface as I dig back for other information.
It is hoped that some of this now begins to come into perspective.
Tom
Tom,
I assume by Mr. Williams that you were referring to me? My dad does not visit this board, so Mike will do just fine.
The only thing I have ever held was that the SBT was possible, if the conditions were right. We of course know the conditions were not such to allow this to have happened.
We also know that given the descriptions of the wounds, that JBC and JFK were wounded at two separate times.
The single bullet theory was is and always will be crap.
Mike
And, you have clearly demonstrated the ability to recognize "crap"; as well as either take it or dish it out if necessary.
My "tam" as my mother always called it is off to you and your research abilities.
So! Irrelevant as to whether you can or can not shoot, your work(s) have certainly passed my testing.
For whatever that may or may not be worth.
Sit back and enjoy the ride, but feel free to yell BS loud and clear at any time, or even merely ask questions.
Tom.
Guess that I am now "Mr. Purvis", as my WWII Navy Vet dad just passed away a couple of months ago.
Tom,
Sorry to hear about your Dad.
If your ever down the Florida way, look me up. I have about 1500 open meters here we can knock some of the rust off on, and then of course re lubricate after with a few cold beers.
Mike
-
Guys,
Isn't it an iron hard fact that the back wound was probed and found to have been a shallow wound with no exit?
Z ? Now, when Airforce One left, headed back towards Washington to take the president to the Bethesda hospital for the autopsy, these two agents received a phonecall from headquarters and were told to report to Andrews airforce base and for taking the motorcade to Bethesda and also view the autopsy to uphold the FBI?s interest. These are the only two agents, or let?s say the only two individuals that night, that took notes as to who was in and out of that room.I have filmed agent Jim Sibert and have talked to agent Francis O?Neill, both of whom viewed the autopsy. And what they have to say, just totally blows the Warren Commission out of the water. Uh, for instance, and bear with me, I just got three paragraphs and I think these three paragraphs will prove there was a conspiracy and a cover-up.
G ? Okay, By all means, go ahead!
Z ? (reading out loud) ?During the last stages of this autopsy Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole, which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.?
That happens to be five and a half inches below the neck line.
?This opening was probed by Dr Humes with a finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entered at this point and entered in a downward position of 55 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a SHORT distance, in as much that the end of the opening could be felt with a finger. In as much that no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area, and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body, as determined by total-body X-rays and inspection revealing that there was no point of exit. The individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explaining why they could not find no bullets.?
What that means, is that this bullet that enterered the back of president Kennedy did not exit the body. If you believe these two agents? testimony of their report, there cannot be, can NOT be a magic bullet.
Mike Williams said:
Was it possible, yes, ...Wow! That's basically the same what Gary Mack says! No further comments.
Wim,
The SBT is physically possible. There is nothing in the ballistics that says it could not happen. However I myself believe it to be hogwash.
Given your past track record with comments, I dont blame you for stopping further comments. Your comments matter little as your discretion has been defined. Are you ever going to get back around to refuting anything I said about your boy Jimmy?
By the way, there is evidence in the 6th floor cartridge casings that refute the SBT as well. But then again I suspect investigating cartridge casings is not your strong suit.
Wim now wander on back to the play dough pack and let the big people talk ok?
Mike
-
Charles,
The perspective I offered was strictly physical. Yes the SBT was possible. The projectile did have the force and penetration ability to achieve the feat. I dont believe the SBT for a second, but not because it was ballistically impossible, but rather that not once has anyone proven the targets were in such a position.
Was is possible, yes, did it happen in this instance.....IMO....NO.
Mike,
We're arguing semantics ... except as follows:
"Opinion" is irrelevant in the JFK assassination case in terms of the "how" -- conspiracy -- and certain other elements, including the SBT.
The Single Bullet Theory is a lie.
Not opinion.
FACT!
Charles,
Then let us of course end the semantics.
I concur it was a lie, of epic complication and proportion.
Mike
-
Mark!
Now that you are pretty much through the "re-learning" curve, I am going to provide a few items which continue to surface as I dig back for other information.
It is hoped that some of this now begins to come into perspective.
Tom
Tom,
I assume by Mr. Williams that you were referring to me? My dad does not visit this board, so Mike will do just fine.
The only thing I have ever held was that the SBT was possible, if the conditions were right. We of course know the conditions were not such to allow this to have happened.
We also know that given the descriptions of the wounds, that JBC and JFK were wounded at two separate times.
The single bullet theory was is and always will be crap.
Mike
-
I suppose the question comes down to, what is "hard evidence" and what is not, and who needs produce it and who doesn't?
We have, first, the quote opening this thread:
[Wim Dankbaar] Let me ask you point blank: Is it your statement that the single bullet theory is possible?[Gary Mack] Of course it is possible. Is it likely? No, but there's no hard evidence that it is impossible.
Here is another in the same exchange that's even more intriguing:
[Gary Mack] The single bullet theory was tested and found to be possible. In the absence of any other hard evidence, therefore, it must have happened.It's a good point that to show the SBT to be "possible" requires more than simply proving that a bullet could have gone through one man's body, but that it also has to include going through another man's in the same manner and with the same relative lack of damage as the bullet that purportedly did so (and I'm thinking that numerous test-firings through the wrists of human cadavers did not demonstrate that "possibility" after having gone only through that one "leg" of the trip, just as firing bullets through live goats' chests - by a veterinarian, no less! No Hypocratic Oath there, I guess - did not).
What I find lacking, though, is the "hard evidence" of a bullet actually traversing Kennedy's body in order to graduate the SBT from merely "having possibly happened" to "must have happened."
Let's consider "hard evidence":
- The chief prosector probed the back wound with his finger and "determined" the missile did not traverse the body "inasmuch as he could feel" where the track ended. Is this "hard evidence" that the bullet did not do so?
- He did the same with a metal probe, which met with resistance, seemingly validating the above determination. Is this further "hard evidence" of the same?
- The published autopsy protocol states that "the missile path ... cannot be easily probled." Is this "hard evidence" that it was successfully probed, just not "easily?"
- Autopsists did not dissect the shoulder and could not therefore state with absolute certainty that the missile's path ended at the point where the metal probe and his finger ceased to indicate a bullet track. Is this "hard evidence" that it "must have happened?"
Is there "hard evidence," then, either that the bullet did or did not traverse the body, one or the other?
If probing to the end of the bullet track is "hard evidence" that the bullet did not do so, then the statement that it "must have happened" is completely, utterly and knowingly false. If it is not "hard evidence" of its not having done so - leaving open the mere possibility that it did - is that "hard evidence" that it "must have happened?" If so, why?
Does an absence of "hard evidence" prove that something "must have happened" simply because there's no "hard evidence" to the contrary? I would think that the statement that something "must have happened" would demand the same "hard evidence" that it did happen - not that it merely "could have" happened, that it is possible - as is required of the statement that it "couldn't have happened" because, after all, it is "possible."
In shorter form, what I really like is (paraphrasing) "It's possible, but it's not likely. But since it's not impossible, it must have happened. There's no hard evidence that something else happened, and none that it did happen, but my lack of hard evidence trumps your lack of hard evidence." I have, in effect, proven my point simply by telling you that you can't prove yours.
I wonder how this "hard evidence" question would apply to the throat wound, because I'm thinking that there "must have been" someone at Parkland malicious or barbarous enough to have stuck his or her fingers in the corpse's throat and just yanked and thrust while nobody was watching in order to turn Dr. Perry's neat little surgical incision into the "distorted" wound that appears in the autopsy photos.
There's no "hard evidence" that it happened while the body was in transit (sorry, David), nor any that it occurred at Bethesda. Since Dr. Perry said that was still a neat cut when he last saw it, and it wasn't a "neat cut" at the outset of the autopsy when they took photos, it could only have happened somewhere between Trauma Room One and the casket. Are there any candidates?
Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious, but applying the same "hard evidence" logic. Or is the "hard evidence" that the tracheostomy incision always looked like a surgical cut despite the "hard evidence" of the photos and the autopsists' description? Hmmm, will have to ponder that further ....
Duke
--------------------
Some further thoughts:
The autopsy protocol in published form reads in relevent part:
The second woundpresumably of entryis that described above in the upper right posterior thorax ... The missile path through the fascia [a band or sheath of connective tissue investing, supporting, or binding together internal organs or parts of the body] and musculaturecannot be easily probed. The woundpresumably of exitwas thatdescribed by Dr. Malcolm Perryof Dallas ... as "a few millimeters in diameter", however its character is distorted is distorted at the time of autopsy. ... there is considerable ecchymosis [bruising] of the strap muscles of the right side of the neck and the fascia about the trachea adjacent to the line of the tracheostomy wound ... [and] in the apex (supra-clavicular [above the clavicle] portion) of the right pleural cavity ... there is a contusion [a bruise in which the subsurface tissue is injured but the skin is not broken] of the parietal pleura [a delicate serous - "watery" - membrane investing each lung and folded back as a lining of the thorax] and of the extreme apical [near the apex] portion of the right upper lobe of the lung ... In both instances the diameter ... atmaximal involvementmeasures 5 cm [two inches].The essence is that there was a wound in the back whose path could not be "easily" probed, surrounding which in the musculature there was considerable bruising, extending to the membrane lining the body cavity but not penetrating it, and also to the tip of the lung which abuts the membrane, also not being penetrated. There is also bruising on and in the throat, but - being described merely as ecchymosis and contusion, i.e., bruising - there is likewise no penetration.
Therefore, the bullet "must have" traversed the body since it is not(?) extant on X-rays; there's no "hard evidence." It could not have fallen out during exteral cardiac massage, as first postulated by the autopsists, or by any other means: there's no "hard evidence" such as a missing, unmutilated bullet anywhere. And a bullet entering from the front - for which there is no "hard evidence" - could not exist because it, too, is non-extant in the X-rays.
Summing up:
- There is no "hard evidence" of a bullet traversing the body, only that a bullet was in the body and caused bruising.
- Since it was not still in the body, it therefore "must have" gone through, providing the needed "hard evidence" that it did so.
- The "hard evidence" that the bullet traversed the body allows for the possibility that the same bullet also hit Governor Connally;
- Knowing that Governor Connally was hit by a bullet that could have been the one that traversed Kennedy's body is "hard evidence" of that bullet being the same as that traversing Kennedy;
- That "hard evidence" proves once and for all that the single-bullet theory "must have happened."
QED. Proving that something "must have happened" requires only either qualifying what "hard evidence" is as needed, or stating that possibility is probability; proving that it "couldn't have happened" requires absolute certainty.
What have we been thinking all this time? All we ever had to do was use faulty logic and wrap it in the cloak of authority and it would have all been so simple!
... Of course, it is also possible that JFK's reaction behind and/or emerging from behind the sign was acute myocardial infarction, and that the man was dead even before his head was blown off (so to speak). This reduces the potential charge from "murder" to "mutilation of a corpse," a misdemeanor. Since it's possible that this was overlooked in favor of the gross observation of the head wound(s), does it follow that since there is no "hard evidence" to the contrary, that it "must have happened" that way?
Duke:
A few clarifications may be in order.
In regards to the "probing" of the wound!
After opening of the chest and finding the bruising of the apical area of the right lung, the parietal pleura (membrane which surrounds the lung) could also be seen to have a corresponding area of bruising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_pleura
With the lungs removed and the chest open, the probe was inserted into the back wound and the front of the probe could be observed inside the open chest, pushing against the parietal pluera in the exact area of the brusing of this membrane.
Due to the physical location of the apex of the lung, as relates to the central location of the anterior throat wound, it is for all practical purposes physically impossible for the same projectile to have created these two separate wounds and not have also torn the neck all to pieces.
Then, when one adds in the fractured and fragmented right transverse process of the C7/T1? vertebrae, along with the purported metallic residue left in the area of the fracture, and the deviated trachea, then it becomes all but impossible for a single projectile to have been responsible for creation of these injuries.
And, that is merely the beginning of the problems!
P.S. The anterior back wound was excised and had slides made of the tissues.
Tom,
The comment about "torn the neck all to pieces" is right on the mark. Many who allege this feat have no clue what med/high velocity projectiles do to a human neck.
Mike
- The chief prosector probed the back wound with his finger and "determined" the missile did not traverse the body "inasmuch as he could feel" where the track ended. Is this "hard evidence" that the bullet did not do so?
-
The question of the possibility of the Single bullet theory can be readily resolved. A 161 grain Carcano bullet traveling at 2182 feet per second strikes with 1701 ft lbs of force. We also know that is required 30 Ft lbs of force for that projectile to penetrate 1" of human tissue. If JFK and JBC together were 3 feet thick, we would only expend 1000 ft lbs penetrating them, and still have 700 ft lbs left over to overcome bone etc. It might also be noted that the wound in JBC thigh was barely the length of the bullet, requiring just over 30 Ft. Lbs.
Yes the SBT was possible.
Now whether our targets were in a position for it to happen, is another matter, and projectile deformity another yet.
Mike
Not to split hairs (or hares, if you use that gun to hunt), but you have not demonstrated that the theory that a single bullet struck JFK and JBC as concocted and proffered by Arlen Specter and/or his masters "was possible." Rather, you have addressed yourself to the issue of the possibility of the projectile you describe penetrating twin targets in your specifically cited fashions.
The historical SBT, when considered properly and fairly -- which is to say, exactly as presented by its fabricator(s) -- was, is, and ever shall be fiction.
Charles,
The perspective I offered was strictly physical. Yes the SBT was possible. The projectile did have the force and penetration ability to achieve the feat. I dont believe the SBT for a second, but not because it was ballistically impossible, but rather that not once has anyone proven the targets were in such a position.
Was is possible, yes, did it happen in this instance.....IMO....NO.
-
See my exchange with Gary here:
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htm
Let me ask you point blank: Is it your statement that the single bullet theory is possible?GM: Of course it is possible. Is it likely? No, but there's no hard evidence that it is impossible.
A forum member here offered the following:
We might ask how the SBT was "shown" to be "possible." Did someone actually fire a bullet from an MC rifle through two corpses at the precise angles; did the bullet penetrate through both corpses in exactly the same way that the SBT theorizes; and did the bullet emerge with only slight damage as did CE399?Well, I think that's a good offer.
So Gary, Why is the abundant evidence that no bullet penetrated the torso of Kennedy not "hard evidence" for the impossibility of the single bullet theory?
I realize you never post on the public forums that you and Perry monitor, but you know how to contact me.
Awaiting.....
Wim
PS: As a side matter, Should the sixth floor museum, as the purported owner of the Zapruder film, not do something about the wide and free availibility on the Internet (a.o. Youtube and Google video) of it? I mean, what is the reasoning that the museum allows that, but tries to charge for use in other media like TV?
The question of the possibility of the Single bullet theory can be readily resolved. A 161 grain Carcano bullet traveling at 2182 feet per second strikes with 1701 ft lbs of force. We also know that is required 30 Ft lbs of force for that projectile to penetrate 1" of human tissue. If JFK and JBC together were 3 feet thick, we would only expend 1000 ft lbs penetrating them, and still have 700 ft lbs left over to overcome bone etc. It might also be noted that the wound in JBC thigh was barely the length of the bullet, requiring just over 30 Ft. Lbs.
Yes the SBT was possible.
Now whether our targets were in a position for it to happen, is another matter, and projectile deformity another yet.
Mike
-
Duke Lane Posted Today, 06:44 AM
QUOTE(Mike Williams @ Aug 12 2008, 04:54 PM)
Let us not forget our Marxist was also arrested wearing his Marine Corp Ring.
Ah, the surest possible sign of someone dissatisfied with the American Way of Life, eh? Let's see: "I hate this place, want to kill the President ... and proud to be a Marine!"
Think so?
Exactly what I was thinking. Further, I do recall LHO in an interview in New Orleans (I recall) having to think about how to respond to a rather spontaneous question on marxism, his response was that of someone trying to recall the lines when playing a part in a play. Of course the defection to Russia just adds to this logical equation of a man who at the age of 17 years volunteers to enlist, who was so bummed he couldn't enlist at 16.....
So why did he enlist? Well some would have us think to "escape" his mother. However, by all accounts, his mother pretty much was at his beck and call, always defended him, and always rationalized his actions. Why would he wish to escape that?
Mike
-
Good Day.... OSWALD's U.S. Marine Corps manual that he gave to CARLOS BRINGUIER in August 1963 recently was auctioned by BRINGUIER on eBay for $ 72,500.
....Proves that smartly and pro-actively seeking out the right customer(s) to satisfy his/her wants, positively pays handsomely !
http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/56190-Lee...sspagenameZWDVW
My only question is whether the guy used an eBay MasterCard to get up to $25.00 back ....?
-
William Kelly Posted Today, 08:31 AM
Don,
Is there a page by page repoduction of this manual?
Would it be possible to get a similar one?
Oswald is said to also have his brother Robert's USMC manual,
which he reportedly memorized before enlisting.
There's more to his manual than meets the eye.
BK
Memorizing the USMC manual as well as enlisting in the USMC, are of course actions which can be considered typical undertakings of communists/marxists.....
Antti,
Let us not forget our Marxist was also arrested wearing his Marine Corp Ring.
Mike
-
Well yeah, the splice means something was taking out. If you see that as "alteration", I agree it was altered. The remaining film was not altered in any way. Basically I'm with Groden on that.
I would not consider the splices an alteration (intentional) as a repair(unintentional).
I do not believe the film was altered, repaired yes.
At least there is something we agree on Wim.
Mike
-
Purvis,
I add your name to another list. Gary Mack, Dave Perry, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, George Bush, Edward Epstein, and hey, even Bob Vernon, are on it too. I'm sure you'll enjoy the company
Joe West will never be on it.
By the way, Files was wrong.
Wim,The grassy knoll video is by far the best comprehensive documentary I've seen regarding the case. It really illustrates the motives and methods, as well as breaks down the events of the day.
I hope I don't spoil your day with this. If you're ready for more "moronic" reviews like this, let me know. Or on second thought, don't bother, I smell you from a mile away.
Wim
Tom,
Gee I reckon that means your name wont be on the dumb as a turnip list.
Thats ok, I reckon my name wont either.
I suspect there are some who would buy into this, but if they were all piled on a bus, I suspect it would be a short bus....yellow with a teeny tiny wheel base.
Bibs and drooling towels come as standard equipment of course, as do the little caps with the propellers on them(eliminates the need for air conditioning!).
Mike
Wim,
Are you ever going to refute anything? Say anything to disprove the information I have given you? I suspect not, and I suspect I know why.
Mike
-
In 2 out of the 3 close up photos (windshield removed from vehicle) posted by Bernice it seems that the defect in the window is closer to the middle of the windshield than in the pictures where the windshield is attached to the vehicle.
In the first photos taken after the incident the defect appears just slightly to the driver side of the top of the rear-view mirror - non towards the middle of the windshield as in the windshield removed photos.
Hmmm......
The close ups do not clearly show a hole in either, were cameras and film really that poor in 1963???
Thanks for the photos.
B,
Im sorry you were gotten by the post gobblin. I hope things are going well in the family matters.
Antti,
I would suggest this is simply because of the different angles the photos were taken from.
Mike
-
Flacks like Purvis and Williams, who were wearing diapers when it happened,
Which statement buttresses the fact that you do little if any research into anything!
Had you done so, then you would be aware that I long ago made the information available that I was in Athens, Ohio*, driving a winch truck for Majestic Pipeline Contractors, LTD, at the time of the JFK Assassination.
As a matter of exact fact, I was at the Texas Eastern Pipeline Company Compressor Station when the event was announced over the radio.
*Divulged after having made statements regarding the "Purvis" name which was found written in LHO's diary. (as well as the "Howell" family name which is my mother's side of the family.)
Can not state for MW whether he was or was not wearing diapers at the time.
If so, then at least he apparantly was not wearing them on his head, as he most certainly has demonstrated the intellectual capacity to recognize BS and neither swallow it nor attempt to sell it to others who suffer from ODD!*
Unlike some here!
Could it be that newbie was smart enough not to buy into the Files trash, and someone far more experienced, and knowledgeable in the research did buy into it?
Yep/Nope!
Yep Part: Could it be that newbie was smart enough not to buy into the Files trash,
Nope Part: and someone far more experienced, and knowledgeable in the research did buy into it?
Nope! As in "far more experienced, and knowledgeable".
As, anyone wiith knowledge and experience would not have fallen for:
A. The Files claims
B. Bob Vernon "selling" the Files claims.
I dont blame him really, I would not want to be known as the Moron who bought this crap either.
Oh how harsh!
Perhaps one should give benefit of doubt and accept that it may be as a result of one of the "4-m's)
1. Highly Misguided!
2. Motivated by Money!
3. Mental disorder!
4. MORON
*ODD: Olfactory Deficent Disorder--Similar to ADD
Tom,
And to add to the research into the possibility of my wearing diapers when the assassination happened, I have posted when I was born, it just so happened to be exactly 12 hours before The 1st episode of the CBS special inquiry report!
Yes Moron was a bit harsh, as perhaps there were/are other motivations such as you mentioned.
I am willing to offer the benefit of the doubt here.
Mike
Wim,
The two tiny wounds to the face are far more likely to have been caused by fragments of a copper jacket, you see Wim, steel projectiles don't fragment like that.
In order for a steel projectile to fragment is has to strike something harder than the elemental steel itself, the skull does not qualify. However the skull could break up a lead bullet, even one with a copper jacket.
I would also add that fragments exiting the face is indicative of a rear shot, not a frontal shot.
I owe you an apology for the Moron comment, perhaps you had things that clouded your judgment in buying into this.
Mike
-
Pat, I really don't mind being called a moron, despicable, dishonorable and what have you by a few blind arrogant diehards.
Galilei and Copernicus were prosecuted for stating that the earth rotates around the sun. When Columbus accepted that the earth is a round planet, he discovered America.
I know the real world out there and I am satisfied with the fact it is not representative for the world of one Mike Williams.
Wim
Wim/Pat,
Yes perhaps moron was a bit strong, and should have been stated differently. We are after all susceptible to being taken in by something. I just struggle with the concept that once someone knows they are in error, that they would continue to promote such things. So I have to either conclude one of tow things.
Mike
-
B,
I am not convinced that what we see in Altgens7 is the damage to the glass. The main reason for this, is that it does not seem to be consistent with what we see at Parkland. Further it is difficult to determine just what we see in the Altgens7 photo.
I am fairly certain there was no glass switch between the shooting event, and Parkland.
The Parkland damage does reflect the CE350 photo. Which is also reflected in other photos, none of which show a hole at all.
There is also the testimony of Robert Frazier, who examined this damage at approx 1am on 11/23/63. I have found nothing in Fraziers testimony that gives me reason to dispute him.
We have many accounts of lead samples being taken from the inside of the glass, if this were a hole from the outside, there would be no lead on the inside shell, it would be chamfered away.
Further problems, where did this bullet go?
We do know by the description of the neck wound that this was not the answer.
First hand accounts are not the best item to base an issue with no physical evidence.
Many of the officers and reporters made inaccurate statements.
Our glass expert tells us it was a clean neat hole, if that were the case the impact angle would be 90 degrees, You do of course know this would have struck the inside of the limo at the best, and an occupant at the worst. Never mind the fact that a projectile striking a slanted windshield would not leave a neat round hole.
How soon after the event did Whittaker see the damage?
How reliable are the reports of those who saw this damage at Parkland, and how do these reports and their reliability stack up against other reports made that day?
To date, I have yet to find one solid piece of evidence for a hole to exist.
In regard to the button in relation to the hole. I have no idea how large that button is of course, but I do know and scaled precisely the mirror in relation to the translucence alleged to be a hole, and the hole does in fact measure 1/8" I would suspect that given the fact that the length of the hood is 80.3 inches, nearly 7 feet, that this button is significantly further from the camera than the "hole" and mirror.
The photo you posted with the arrow does not represent the location of the supposed hole. The arrow indicates a location on the right of the rear view mirror.
I wish you the best with your family situation, whatever it maybe.
Mike
-
You're funny, Purvis. You call Vernon "A New Orleans hustler" and then you start to promote his words! That says a lot about you!
I bet you're one of those that would call Joe West a hustler too.
Wim
Apparently a Orleans Hustler is smarter than a less than honorable Dutchman.
I notice Wim that rather than engage me in the issues you just call me the devil, etc. Have I jabbed at you, well certainly, how could I not. However I continue to wait upon you to refute just one issue I set forth. You won't you cant.
You sell tall tales Wim, you dishonor yourself, and the research community in general. No wonder it is difficult to find anyone to take so much of this seriously.
You do this for profit, and that is just despicable.
Crawl back under your rock Wim,
Mike
-
The usual suspects flock together. No wonder that serious researchers avoid this place. I guess I should leave it to the idiots too.
Wim
Wim, I agree that your post deserved a more substantive response.
Are there any studies on the appearance on x-rays of wounds received from mercury bullets? It is a little appreciated fact that Humes was unable to find the trail of fragments in the brain because it was on the outside of the scalp. I'm wondering if mercury bullets explode on the skull or in the skull.
Pat,
How right you are. Wim deserves a well defined answer, however this is something he, in all his expertise should already know.
In the time frame we are discussing, there was but one load for the .221 fireball, and that was a copper coated lead core full metal jacket.
Does this not mean anything to anyone? It should.
Mercury dissolves lead, it also dissolves copper. Gunsmiths have been using it to remove lead and copper barrel deposits for ages. It reacts quite quickly and will permeate lead in a very short time. Thus mercury bullets are made using steel projectiles, which were not available for the fireball in this era.
This is something Wim should have known before he put the green on the table for such a horrific tall tale.
Mercury bullets, even when made properly, are unstable and generally not very reliable. There accuracy is horrific. Maybe that is why this technique has been limited to hand gun use for close range elimination.
NOW.
Having said all that. I wonder if Wim is even remotely interested in the fact that the hole in the back of the head is far more consistent with a full metal jacket, or, a soft tipped hunting bullet.
Mercury bullets have piss poor penetration, and they loose energy very quickly. In a head would they would likely penetrate upon entry, and have a very small chance at exiting at all.
Now I can give him a very detailed answer, but it wont be accepted. It can not be. For once Wim accepts the ballistic facts, the rest of his world comes tumbling down.
I dont blame him really, I would not want to be known as the Moron who bought this crap either.
Mike
-
Mike,
The one that was asking was me, but you didn't respond. Not really, only with insignificant ridicule. You only agreed with Don Bailey that there was no shot from behind the picket fence, which puts you in the vast minority here, defying 70 % of the Dealey Plaza witnesses.
Wim,
What I said was, "No head shot came from behind the picket fence." The shot that hit JFK in the throat came from behind the picket fence... IMO.
Please do not use my name in your postings if you cannot correctly quote what I've said.
Don Bailey
Don,
How would you then account for the lack of residue on the clothing? Where did this bullet go? Why do we see significantly less damage than we would expect?
Mike
-
Mike,
Re: measurements, I was having trouble reading your presentation. I believe 1" means one inch, correct?
Therefore 1 inch is 2,54 cm. This is 25,4 mm.
1mm= 1/25,4 of an inch. 2" would be 5,08cm or 50,8mm.
16mm. would be just around 5/8 of an inch or more precisely 16/25,4 of an inch.
http://bluefive.pair.com/inches_to_cm_to_inches.htm
Antti
What I did was print the images at 100% then measured the known 2 inch height of the rear view. It measured 16mm. This means to scale that 16mm=2 inches. Thus 1mm equals 1/8 inch. The defect in the glass that has been called a hole because it appears translucent measures 1mm or to scale 1/8" less than 1/3 of what a 6.5mm bullet hole would be. Bear in mind 1/8" is .125 inches and smaller than a .177 caliber pellet!
Mike
-
Mike Williams Posted Yesterday, 11:25 AM
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 10 2008, 03:26 AM)
IMO there's not enough detail (or pixels) in the attached photos to determine whether the damaged area in the windshield shows a hole. More importantly IMO the existance of this defect (and the one in the trim of the windshield) indicates that most likely, there were more than 3 shots fired at the limo and it's occupants, thus indicating a conspiracy.
Antti,
The one certain thing is that a hole would leave a translucent area. We can see the crack in the parkland photo, and an alleged area of translucence. This area however could also be the chip in the glass that we see in the CE350 photo also above. The similarities in the cracks are marked by colored arrows. This means we are looking at the same damage in the PL photo that we are looking at in the CE350 photo (ala no switcheroo).
There is not a single photo in evidence that shows a hole in the glass. Not one. Yet all the photos in evidence share like characteristics with the original damage. Further evidence of the lack of a hole.
As for the damage to the limo overall being an indication of a conspiracy, you will have to expand on this a bit, as both the glass and chrome damage could come from a single shot passing through the rear of the head of JFK, fragmenting, and causing the damage. The total damage can be attributed to a single shot.
Best,
Mike
Mike, thanks for your reply.
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/forensic.htm
Any comments on the above?
As for the damage to the limo overall being an indication of a conspiracy, you will have to expand on this a bit, as both the glass and chrome damage could come from a single shot passing through the rear of the head of JFK, fragmenting, and causing the damage. The total damage can be attributed to a single shot.
Mike, I do agree that one shot could have caused damage to different areas of the vehicle, however most likely not a FMJ bullet as alleged by the WC. Perhaps my wording was off, as it leads the reader to believe that my opinion is that a hole in the windshield indicates a 4th shot (from the front, not an impossibility either), when in fact I wanted to allude to the likeliness of a 4th bullet having been one that fragmented, one of a different type that is.
I don't believe that a FMJ bullet would fragment as seen in the x-rays and and other evidence. Therefore this evidence does not agree with the Carcano being the only weapon used for all the shooting done in Dealy Plaza that day. Therefore if 3 shots were fired from the Carcano, the damage caused by the fragments at the scene and in the victim is likely caused by a different weapon/bullet.
Further, I do place more weight on the eyewitness statements regarding a hole in the windshield, than the photos I have seen depicting the limousine and windshield (which IMO do not contain enough detail to form a definitive opinion).
By the way, do you consider the existance of a hole in the windshield, or alternatively the lack of a hole to be a key issue? If yes, how so, if I may ask?
Also, do you consider you calculations regarding the precise size of the damaged area in the windshield to be accurate? I'm sure the size of the mirror is correct though - as you indicated.
Thanks!
Antti,
I consider the hole a key issue in some respects. If it were proven to be a hole from the front, the implications would be huge. However this creates many issues. Shooters location, disposition of the projectile, etc.
I printed the photos and then scaled them with both a mm ruler and digital calipers. They are as accurate as I can make them. Now one thing to consider here is that the alleged hole, or translucent area is further from the camera than the rear view, this would mean that the scale would be off slightly. However given the 1/8 size in relation the difference would really be a non-issue.
By comparing the 3/8 mark I made, as to how large the hole should be, we can clearly see there is nothing to indicate a hole that large. Given the fact that charicteristically the PL damage replicates the CE350 damage, we have to agree that both photos are genuine and replicate the damage, and this damage just does not show a hole of any significant size if it shows any type of hole at all.
I have some other photos of this damage which do show the same damage at PL and CE350, they clearly show no hole. I will dig those up and post them for you, but might not be able to until this evening.
As for the article you posted, I will give it a read and then offer what I can. I have not read that article yet.
Mike
-
Mercury bullets......riiiiiigggghhhhhtttttt :lol:
You are to much Wim.
I had a dog that chased his tail once, he grew out of it maybe you will too.
Mike
Hey Mike, I've got the self same dog, I call it Files. Always around at feeding time, but can't get the damn thing housebroken.
Roger That!
I have another puppy as well. He bites himself in the tail and cries about it.....I think I may name him Wim.
Mike
-
Mike,
Thanks for the detailed response.
On the subject of film alteration in this case, I'm an agnostic. While I don't necessarily believe that the Zapruder film or any other film was altered, I think that Jack White, Jim Fetzer, etc. have raised some intriguing questions. Ultimately, I think that it really matters little whether or not those films were altered. There is an abundance of other evidence to indicate there was a conspiracy.
As for Tom Purvis, I certainly don't mean to sound pompous. I simply don't see how any rational person can follow his long, repetitive posts and understand what he's saying. If I comprehend his overall theory about the assassination, he thinks that all the shots were fired by Oswald with the Mannlicher-Carcano, from the sixth floor window of the TSBD, but he also claims that the Warren Commission engaged in a massive coverup. Which begs the question; since they spent all their efforts trying to establish the extremely flimsy case against Oswald, what kind of coverup is he referring to? He also, I think, agrees with the alterationists. He maintains that Oswald was a crack shot, when all the available evidence indicates otherwise. He seems to have impressed a few people on this forum, which is astonishing to me. However, my hat's off to you if you can decipher what he's saying, because I must not be perceptive (or patient) enough to do so.
On the subject of this thread, I'm certainly no expert, but I am impressed by the testimony of those who adamantly maintained they saw a hole in the windshield. Doug Weldon is a true expert on this subject- maybe you could contact him.
Don,
I believe that you offer good advice. I will contact Weldon and see what he has to say. If you feel he is a true expert in this area, then it would be the only honorable thing to do. I have no problem with being wrong, if it is proven to be so, I just want to know the correct information, even if that mean I am incorrect. It would seem that if there is an issue here Weldon may be able to point it out to me.
For now until this is proven wrong, I have to maintain there was no hole. I do not do that to be a hardheaded jerk, Its simply that I have not been exposed to sufficient evidence to think otherwise. Perhaps Weldon can change that.
As for Tom. Like I said there are some things I do not agree with. Oswald being a crack shot, is one. BUT I will not belabor that, simply because, Oswald did not have to be a crack shot to accomplish this task. These were not difficult shots. While there are some issues that do point towards conspiracy, and those do have to be accounted for, the only evidence we have by and large, is of a single rear shooter. I do not feel comfortable saying Oswald acted alone, there are questions left unanswered.
Mike
Questions for Gary Mack
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Heres something of interest. I have no doubt that the back wound was in fact only penetrated to a depth of 2". However reading some of the studies of E Forrest Chapman would give us another possibility. CE544 showed indications of having abnormally shallow bolt face markings. What this means is that it did not fire at full velocity. If I recall correctly Chapman puts the velocity in the 20% range. Since the normal tested FPS was 2182, then this would be in the 400 FPS range.
We know that in order for the projectile to penetrate to a depth of 2" it had to strike the body at 400 fps, this would exert 60 ft lbs of energy, and thus consuming 30 ft lbs per inch, cause the bullet to stop 2 inches into the flesh.
Given the travel distance that would have the projectile leaving the barrel at some 439 feet per second. (easily figured using the velocity and the ballistic coefficient of the bullet).
This would in fact cause the bullet to punch more, and pierce less, dragging clothing into the wound. It would also have caused the projectile to strike about 13-15 inches low of the aim point. If a shooter were leading the target properly, what we would see is a shot that strikes far lower than desired. About 13 inches lower, or, about 6 inches down from the collar.
CE545 showed signs of being the only cartridge that performed as expected.
Tom, CE543 has many issues. Exceptionally deep primer indentation, Marks from repeated loading, and bolt face markings that were so shallow as to only indicate loading (much like we see on CE141). For the ones who know what this means, its revealing.
There was without doubt something that cause the projectile that struck JFK in the back to be greatly diminished in velocity, Im just not convinced it was a tree limb. In the few instances I have fired Carcano rounds to replicate this, a deflection almost without fail caused the projectile to veer so badly off course as to make striking the target almost impossible. Given the indications of a less than full velocity discharge on CE544, I think our answer maybe found.
Mike