Mike Williams

Bernie,

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

Just because the autopsy photos could well have been tampered with, does not mean the films were. They had the opportunity to completely control the autopsy photos, an opportunity they do not, and did not have with the films.

Lee,

I understand your comments regarding the SS. So why then would the big 3 Kellerman, Hill, and Greer all testify to a huge hole in the back of the head? Why would they not follow the story line to the end? That makes 0 sense. I would be happy to read anything you have to offer. Hell I have even read Mortal Error, which took me longer to open than to debunk.

I completely agree the SS really botched the security. That is not evidence that the Z film is altered however.

Bernie,

I know your query was directed at Bill, and I hope you do not mind me venturing a reply.

I believe the Z film itself IS evidence of multiple shooters, I also believe this film is unaltered. I think it is just foolishly explained away with such ridiculousness as the SBT/MBT, and other such Horse poo.

Look at the WC, and how they delt with the back of the head wound, which almost every single medical witness stated that they observed. They never delt with it at all. They brushed it to the top, they brushed it to the side, they talk witnesses in circles. Many of the Secret Service Men in Dallas that day testify to a severe back of the head wound, much to Arlen Sphincters chagrin. And yet they come to the conclusion it did not exist. Very selective on their part to say the least.

The FBI, viewing the film on 29NOV63 stated that JFK was hit with the first shot, JBC with the second, and JFK again with the third. They maintain that position to this day!

In my opinion they would not have to alter it, when they can control selectively its interpretation.

Altering the film opens up a whole new can o' worms. It would still have to jive with all the other film, unless of course all the other film were altered as well. Which leads us to yet another issue. To this day, not all the film is accounted for. How were they to know that a film would not show up exposing their charade?

Why would the Secret Service men who were in the plaza that day go along with a "modified" Z film, and then give testimony to the back of the head wound....that makes no sense to me at all.

I personally do not believe that the conspiracy runs that deep.

Larry Hancock related an old joke to me on the phone recently. A ct dies and goes to heaven. First thing he asks God is who killed JFK. God says well.....Oswald, Just like the Warren Commission said. The CT scratches his head and says, dang this conspiracy goes higher than I ever thought.

Peter,

Of course. I apologize and had no intention of diverting the thread. I need to edit that post, I ment to say Tippit in the first line, and just make a general observation about LHO in the second.

Mike

Bernie,

In reality the comparison to Oj as a hamster is a little more far fetched than many of the z film alteration claims, this could be one reason it receives so many replies.

I myself have not read one conclusive piece that has given me pause to suspect a forgery of the film, and so the bunk, and debunk continues.

As to where I would have chosen, if the operation were put to me, and given the fact that we have to have someone in the 6th floor my positions would be as follows.

1) 6th floor, banging away with the Carcano.

2) Dal-Tex Roof, for the straight away shot, and an excellent field of fire.

3) South triple overpass area, good field of fire, decent firing angle, excellent to effect an escape.

None of these positions interfere with one another, it is a safe cross fire situation.

The south op shooter should have held to a given mark. Say If JFK had not received a solid head shot before reaching the Stemmons sign, an insurance shooter if you will.

Don Roberdeau has done some excellent map work, and the shot from the south was possible, in my opinion.

I will contact Don and seek his permission to post his map of this angle here, so you can see it, and relate it to the over all geography.

Best to you Bernie,

Mike

Duncan,

Man I was way off I had you pegged for Paul Stanley!

Yes, way off, just like the size of that hat. Now if you said you borrowed it from Bill miller who i'm sure his head would produce a better fit, then maybe I would believe you

Nice one!

I assure you if I had been intending to provoke, it would have been very clear, there would be no need to suspect it.

It was very clear

Dont be so thin skinned Duncan!

My intention was not to provoke, it was a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous post. The question was a matter of identity, there was no intent to be mean spirited.

As for me being a xxxxx, well why would that be?

I dinn't say you were a xxxxx, I said I suspected you are a xxxxx. The reasons i'll keep to myself.

Could it be because I speak my mind, and just so happen to not agree with you?

Is that the qualification of a xxxxx? Do I need to sugar coat my replies more so as to satisfy the thin skinned among us, and avoid them bunching their cotton lining?

Trolls need no qualifications. Their tactics are always obvious to those, like me who have been around a while.

Are they as obvious as Sitzman holding a camera? If they are then reevaluate!

As for my photo simply ask around a bit, there are many here who know me, and have seen other pictures of me. I do grant that picture was about 24 years ago, most likely about the same time you had your last haircut.

LOL!!! More agent provocateur tactics, and hey you what's your problem with my hair, it obviously gets to you, are you bald as a billiard ball and a tad jealous? LOL!!!

You caught me, its this dang receeding hairline! I have no issue with your hair man, Im just ribbing you a bit.

You should feel free to blow that picture of me up, to the point of over pixelation, and you will find my true identity I am sure.

I'd rather not thanks, I watched The Exorcist last night, and that was scary enough LOL!!!

Did you write that one yourself?

Heres a hint, I am not hatman.

Maybe not the Moorman hatman, but you sure are the forum Hatman...big time

Guilty as charged yurhonor! Ill wear that hat anyplace!

I would however like to add one further comment. The use of the term Son would imply that you have slept with my mother, she has far better taste than that I am sure, so in the future it may better to leave lineage out of the equation.

I have a reply that which I won't post because it would be in extremely bad taste, and I don't want to push the forum rules.

Wise beyond your beers!

Rock on Duncan,

Mike

Peace Brother

Duncan

Ah now the brother relation I would gladly accept. Peace to you as well Brother! After all we are all researching to the same end, to find out what happend that day!

Mike

Duke,

I do not know what to make of the whole issue to be honest. Tippit, and his part in the whole scheme of things is probably one of the things I struggle with most about the whole case.

I know some may not understand this, but the fact that Oswald was arrested wearing his Marine Corp ring speaks volumes to me.

Mike

How can we be sure the person known as Duncan is really Duncan, and not some cast off from the rock band KISS?

Mike Williams

For a newcoming suspected troller, that's quite a statement to make.

How do we know that you are who you say you are?. Your picture looks like a rejected frame from an old Action Man TV Commercial, with the hat being way too big for the toy's head.

I suspect your comment about the identity of myself and others was intended to provoke.

You've got a lot to learn mister, or as DGH would say................Son LOL!!!

Gene Simmons

Duncan,

Man I was way off I had you pegged for Paul Stanley! I assure you if I had been intending to provoke, it would have been very clear, there would be no need to suspect it.

My intention was not to provoke, it was a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous post. The question was a matter of identity, there was no intent to be mean spirited.

As for me being a xxxxx, well why would that be? Could it be because I speak my mind, and just so happen to not agree with you? Is that the qualification of a xxxxx? Do I need to sugar coat my replies more so as to satisfy the thin skinned among us, and avoid them bunching their cotton lining?

As for my photo simply ask around a bit, there are many here who know me, and have seen other pictures of me. I do grant that picture was about 24 years ago, most likely about the same time you had your last haircut.

You should feel free to blow that picture of me up, to the point of over pixelation, and you will find my true identity I am sure. Heres a hint, I am not hatman.

I would however like to add one further comment. The use of the term Son would imply that you have slept with my mother, she has far better taste than that I am sure, so in the future it may better to leave lineage out of the equation.

Rock on Duncan,

Mike

Miles,

First off there is no range in the plaza that would require more than moderate skill to attain a hit. We are not talking a thousand yard shot here. Basic shooting skills, and a small amount of practice would have sufficed. Bill is correct from the aspect that the target would require very little lead.

To address the rifle resting on the fence issue. It would just be a matter of preference for the shooter. I would say there is no absolute answer for this question, at least none that could be given to the exclusion of all others.

Now for my own opinion, and this is just my opinion mind you.

It was a lousy position to chose to shoot from, and certainly not one I would have chosen.

It was not the origin on the head shot, and if any shot at all, a missed shot.

It would be ridiculous to back a shot with a handgun from this location, as some have claimed.

With JFK facing left at the time of the head shot, and the angle given from the knoll area, I would think we would see a transiting shot exiting the right side of the head, very likely wounding Jackie.

Nothing about that shooting location adds up.

As a note there are ways to stabilize a rifle on that fence without sticking the barrel between the slats.

Best,

Mike

Jack,

Sure can relate there. I have read a few books lately that were older issues and small type and light ink. I do not wear glasses yet, but perhaps very soon.

I think I will order a copy and give this book a read, does sound very interesting.

Mike

...he says he has been banned from the forum, and for some reason

wanted this photo posted.

IMO, nice photo of the TWO CHIEF CONSPIRATORS conspiring.

Jack

Jack,

Alas something we agree on! If the question about that picture were posed to chose the lesser of two evils that would be a tough decision for old Solomon himself.

Best to ya Jack,

Mike

Jack,

No what I said was its good to see you back from moderation.

When was I "on moderation"?

Jack

Possibly when you posted this?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=11998&hl=

I would assume since you said Burton put you on moderation, that you were on moderation, but no matter.

Miles,

Could you explain to me just why the motorcycle backfiring would have to be 50 feet above the man laying on the ground? The man clearly states above and behind, however he gives no indication of the distance of either. Your drawing of trajectory makes little if no sense. Above and behind could have involved a multitude of angles, unless of course there is a specific area you are trying to promote. But than again, I guess if you consider ABOVE and BEHIND, as being described in great detail, you can make any assumption you wish.

Bill,

Ever notice the similarities between the alterationists and a slinky? Both are rather simple, and both are amazingly fun to throw down the stairs!

Nice Job!

Mike

Bill,

Halt, cease and desist.

Are you sure you are talking to the actual David and Jack?

How can we be sure it is really them?

How can we be sure the person known as Duncan is really Duncan, and not some cast off from the rock band KISS?

How can we be sure that it was really JFK in that limo (I'm already ahead of their next ridiculous claim!), how do we know that JFK is not working in a McDonalds in Kalamazoo Michigan with Elvis, and Richie Valenz, and DB Cooper?

Bill Old Buddy you have to draw a line in the sand of stupidity, and just refuse to cross it. Your research time is to valuable to be derailed with the ridiculous.

Beetle,

Then your instincts are incorrect. Bill is no more a Lone Nut supporter than Jack, David or many others.

What does his starting a thread have to do with anything? Is he required by some law to begin new threads in order to be able to reply to threads begun by others?

As for bullying, you should read more of the existing threads, its pretty much a give and take around here.

What is wrong with debunking a conspiracy theory that does not work? It sounds as though you are saying that because Bill debunks some theory, he must be a lone nut, which is as irrational as your parrot comment.

I think Bill has done some excellent work. I may not agree with all of it in totem, but I believe much of the work is very good. I would say the same of Jack White. We do not all agree, that is why is is called debate.

Mike

Peter,

Apparently part of my perception about you was incorrect, and for that I surely am man enough to apologize.

I too have issues with both parties, and one of those issues is with those on the left bashing for the sake of bashing. Bashing the ridiculous for the sake of party gain.

Perhaps I placed you in a group I should not have.

Two things we agree on. Wecht and what is happening to him is pure poo, and it is time for a change in this country. Not a change in party politics, but a change in thinking in general. Our politicians have become so detached from the common working man, that they no longer can relate.

Part of that is due to the fact that politics is no longer service to the nation, it is a career. When Truman were President things were much different. If he had not written books about his presidency, he would have virtually been homeless after his term. Now the politicians sap this country, they sap the lobbyists, and are absolutely a disgrace.

I jabbed at you perhaps in reflex. Im tired Peter, tired of the the left constantly taking shots at Bush for the sake of the party.

Hillary going to the pentagon, and demanding to know when our troops will be brought home, how mortally stupid was that?? Talk about fueling the enemy, and she wants to be a President??? She can not even control her own home affairs.

Look Peter, I am probably as disgusted with the way things are, as you are. Im tired of folks bashing the US, and bashing the President.

I believe we both want the same things, I am just not sure we agree how to attain them, and isn't it always like that?

Just for the record, I am registered republican. However, should a Democrat come on scene that was worth the spit it takes to wet a postage stamp, I may well vote for them. I believe in who ever is best for the US. Sadly it has been some years since we have had anyone worth supporting.

Peace to you as well Peter,

Mike

Jack,

No what I said was its good to see you back from moderation.

Mr. White,

If the premise is freedom of speech, and non censorship, then what its coming to is my right to express myself. If it offends you well, personally I find trying to hood wink the public with the crap you and Fetzer spew to be offensive as well.

I see by your speedy reply that you are off moderation, glad to see it.

Mike

You know Lemkin I am so tired of your worn out bull. Is there anything Bush is NOT responsible for? Cancer, hepatitis, Aids, The Holocaust, it all relates back to Bush....Right Peter??

You are so typically the Liberal left, that no matter what he has accomplished it would be a travesty. It is great to see now that the left is in charge of the house, that things are running so much smoother, giving us an all time LOW of the houses approval rating. I thought you clowns were supposed to make an improvement....Still waiting for that one.

Instead lets raise the Fed Min wage, and really screw the common people. Then vote against pay increase for the military, and give ourselves a raise!

You are very correct in your article that Americans are getting stupider, in fact you are living proof.

Let me ask you Mr. Lemkin, have you ever put your rear on the line for anything you believe in, or just your mouth?

Exercise that freedom of speech mister, others paid for it, you may as well use it.

Edited for the language, youngsters you know.

Spring chicken indeed!!!!

Another interesting oddity, I qualified, for the first time, on the rifle range, on 21DEC84. Out boy LHO qualified on 21DEC56 I believe, or possibly 59, I have not finished enough coffee this morning to feel like looking it up.

Other historical dates for my bday

Little Big Horn 1876

Beginning of open hostilities in Korea 1950

Sorry for the off topic

I am pretty new to all this, and did not know that Rowland and his wife had some conflict in testimony. It is amazing to me the number of people who report gunmen, and where they are located.

Something else of interest. The majority of people outside in the plaza state 3 shots regardless of grouping, while many who remained inside the depository, and not at the front windows, report only 2.

Best,

Mike

Pat,

I have long held that the only "evidence" of the SBT, is the very vestige of hope that at some point the alignment resolved, and the shot could have been made. Of course there was never any proof, and their remains no proof that this alignment ever happened. Of course the opposite is true as well. There is no evidence that it did not occur.

The overwhelming physical evidence is that the SBT is nothing more than foolishness.

So how does one support the SBT?

Well like Specter did. Introduce it to testimony so many times, by way of asking the witnesses to assume a mountain of what he often refers to as "facts". I am not so sure that one can assume, a fact. The mere thought that it is an assumption would not allow it to be a fact, but that does not seem to register with Specter.

I must say old boy, excellent job in drawing Myer out. Perhaps in his next episode he will include something worthwhile, like....oh....Road runner perhaps. At least there is some entertainment value in that cartoon.

BEEP BEEP,

Mike

Bill,

You can lead a horse to water, but if you have to drown them to get them to drink, you are still left afoot.

Do not allow yourself to be bogged down by foolishness, as it is so easy to do.

Oh yea, something my grandfather used to say comes to mind.

"Never argue with a fool, after awhile folks watching wont be able to tell the difference."

Bernice,

Thank You. That is what I was referring to. "it appeared to be a big scope..."

In relation to the size of a normal rifle scope, a spotting scope is quite large. Unusually so. I guess that is why Rowland's statement struck me that way.

The very first episode of that CBS report aired the day I was born, a friend of mine was kind enough to send me dvd copies of that series in color.

Best to you Bernice,

Mike

John,

One of the first things that struck me in Rowland's Testimony is the fact that it would be difficult to judge the power of the weapon, by the size of the scope.

If I recall correctly they interviewed Rowland in the 67 cbs report. I have no idea why, but the way Rowland describes what he saw in that report, struck me as though Rowland may have been talking about a spotting scope. I believe he actually said that the scope was large in relation to the rifle.

Best,

Mike

Bernie,

Since your napalm crack was directed at me, I felt I should respond. Apology accepted *hearty handshake*. I am a bit thick skinned, so no worries there. I would like to take the opportunity to also thank you for using your freedom of speech. It is a wonderful gift, and purchased at a heavy price. Not everyone agrees with every political decision, and not everyone agrees with every military action, but it is a fine thing to live in a country were we are free to express out thoughts and concerns publicly, without worrying about a midnight visit. My best wishes for you Bernie, and Blessings to MUM.

Salute,

Mike