Mike Williams

Pat, You never learn. The 15 yard and 25 yard targets were fired for speed, and not accuracy. Try actually reading Frazier. Frazier tells us that the first time the weapon is fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64, at 100 yards. Also in Fraziers testimony, and quite easy to comprehend. In fact the 15 and 25 yard tests were very good for being fired in under 5 seconds. Again, these were fired for speed, and not accuracy. Now who says that the shooting time was limited to 5.6 seconds? I have often speculated that the event was closer to 8 seconds. So then, how do your shooters compare to that? Quite well actually. Pat, I challenge you to find one piece of testimony that says that rifle was fired for accuracy before 3/16/64. Of course you can not. Within 72 hours of that rifle being found it had already been transported to Washington and back. I am still waiting for you to offer just one single piece of conclusive evidence that the scope was defective at 1230 on 11/22/63. So far you have not given one credible argument for said same. DJ, Man Im sorry I had a hectic day the last few. I will go back over your post and try to catch up.

As far back as 1966 Josiah Thompson pointed out in the New York Review of books that CE399 was planted evidence: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1966/oct/06/the-second-oswald-1/ THe fragments found in DC, like CE399 had no trace of human blood or tissue, and they look planted also. THe rifle found in the TSBD showed no sign of recent firing, and also looks planted. No one in Parkland hospital observed a wound in JFK's back, and the Zapruder film shows clearly, as Ayoob observes, that JFK was shot in the head from the right front, with an exploding bullet. Also, Lee Oswald was not on the Sixth floor at the relevant times, had absolutely no motive to kill JFK, and was also framed for the Tippit muder. THe HSCA was set up to deal with these problems and prove that the physical evidence was not planted. Blakey came up with the Jet Effect, which Sturdivan's testimony proved was junk science, and he came up with the acoustics which supposedly proved three shots from the TSBD, but the acoustics also turned out to be junk science. Blakey also came up with GUinn's CABLA CADABLA, which supposedly proved beyond doubt that CE399 and the limo fragments were NOT PLANTED. Of course Guinn's cabla-cadabla has also been shown to be junk science, and has been rejected by state and federal courts. Even Blakey himself now admits that Guinn's theory was junk science. SO all the proofs that the evidence is genuine have ended up on the scrap-heap of history, and we are back to planted evidence. [Edit From Pat Speer earlier on this thread, further evidence that the rifle was planted Every time I read the comment about the misaligned scope I have to laugh. It is purely an ignorant statement. There is no way to prove the condition of the scope during the assassination. You would think if nothing else, people would have learned that by now. Mike - not proving the condition of the scope and it's alignment isn't the point.... As a shooter yourself... if you dissassemble a rifle, reassemble it with the scope on it... would you feel confident that the scope you were looking thru was ready? Is there ANY WAY POSSIBLE that scope was aligned to Oswald the marksmans needs after the reassembly? How would he know without firing a shot (please remember Mike that we have to take the word of the WCR... all he did was go to the garage, dissasseble the rifle, stuff in the bag Frasier sees and bring it to work... Hide it for the morning... and at the approriate time to be in position to fire the shots he as reassemblied the rifle and looks thru the scope for the first time that day - without firing a shot.) I prefer we stay focused on what needed to happen for Oswald to have been the successful LN you claim.... instead of the condition of the scope alignment... which if you remember COULD NOT BE SIGHTED CORRECTLY WITHOUT SHIMS.... what would have to occur to allow Oswald to use the rifel and scope to its utmost efficiency... I mean please remember... two out of three hits on a moving target... with perfect accuracy... are you saying he just got lucky and that luck was his plan - for we know he did not behave like a trained marksman in his preparation. I want to understand Mike... as you know. A man dedicated to killing the president with a scoped rifle has to have his own plan to set in motion, no? If you can walk us thru this plan, and if it makes sense, I am more than willing to learn. DJ David, So long as Oswald did not remove the scope from the receiver, there should be no issue. He would not have had to remove the scope in order to sack the rifle. Also, a rifle can be sighted at 100 yards with as few as 4 rounds fired. Simply fire 3 well aimed rounds, and then adjust based on those measurements. As an example shot 1 is 1" high and 1" right shot 2 is 1.5 high and 1" right shot 3 is 2" high and 1" right The average is 1.5" high and 1" right Adjust the top elevation dial 6 clicks up Adjust the windage dial 4 clicks left. Fire 1 round to verify. That's really all there is to it. Thing is, I really am not so sure that Oswald cared about that scope at all. He was an efficient, competent, and confident iron sights shooter. He had managed to engage and hit targets out to 500 yards with open sights. Frazier tells us that the scope was very loose the first time he received it. He believed someone had taken the scope off at the DPD. One of the most difficult things I defend is the ease of these shots. I can not express enough just how easy these are. If one is to look at it, the WC makes many mistakes in the ballistics. They proclaim the easiest shot was the first ones, because the target was closest. This is pure rubbish, and shame on their experts for letting this go. In the early stages the limo is moving primarily left to right, a passing shot, which is very difficult with a rifle. As the Limo moved further along, the target became nearly moving straight away. Much easier in spit of the slight increase in distance. Many people will say that if they were so easy, how come few have duplicated them. Well this is an illusive answer. Most of the marksman hit 2 of 3, Oswald hit at least 2 of 3. Few Marksman got a hit on the head. Oswald did happen to, but of the marksman that did not, some were very close. The vast majority of marksman who have tried this actually fired as well as Oswald, and Howard Donahue(sp?) hit it right on the mark. I can give you my thoughts and my plan, however I have to base it on just what I think Oswald was thinking. I think this was a spontaneous decision on his part. I believe this is why he only had 4 rounds of ammo, he simply did not have opportunity to purchase more. Parts of his plan were brilliant. Waiting till he was firing at their backs, and not into their faces coming up Houston, as an example. See Oswald was not stupid at all. He left the pistol at home to actually buy time. I think that he figured he did not want to get caught with a weapon (pistol). He planned on hiding that rifle, and hauling butt. If he got stopped outside the TSBD he was unarmed, and appeared quite inert. He figured by the time they located the missing employee and tied him to the rifle, he would have one hum dinger of a head start. Just speculation on my part buddy, but heck really thats all any of us can do. Oh yes The shims The very first time anyone even considers that the scope needs shims, is on 3/16/64 when Frazier tried to sight it in at 100 yards. Remember the 15 and 25 yard tests on 11/27/63 were actually quite good. That rifle had traveled thousands of miles between 11/23/67 and 3/16/64 Mike

As far back as 1966 Josiah Thompson pointed out in the New York Review of books that CE399 was planted evidence: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1966/oct/06/the-second-oswald-1/ THe fragments found in DC, like CE399 had no trace of human blood or tissue, and they look planted also. THe rifle found in the TSBD showed no sign of recent firing, and also looks planted. No one in Parkland hospital observed a wound in JFK's back, and the Zapruder film shows clearly, as Ayoob observes, that JFK was shot in the head from the right front, with an exploding bullet. Also, Lee Oswald was not on the Sixth floor at the relevant times, had absolutely no motive to kill JFK, and was also framed for the Tippit muder. THe HSCA was set up to deal with these problems and prove that the physical evidence was not planted. Blakey came up with the Jet Effect, which Sturdivan's testimony proved was junk science, and he came up with the acoustics which supposedly proved three shots from the TSBD, but the acoustics also turned out to be junk science. Blakey also came up with GUinn's CABLA CADABLA, which supposedly proved beyond doubt that CE399 and the limo fragments were NOT PLANTED. Of course Guinn's cabla-cadabla has also been shown to be junk science, and has been rejected by state and federal courts. Even Blakey himself now admits that Guinn's theory was junk science. SO all the proofs that the evidence is genuine have ended up on the scrap-heap of history, and we are back to planted evidence. [Edit From Pat Speer earlier on this thread, further evidence that the rifle was planted Every time I read the comment about the misaligned scope I have to laugh. It is purely an ignorant statement. There is no way to prove the condition of the scope during the assassination. You would think if nothing else, people would have learned that by now.

Guys, I have not forgotten this thread, I have a hectic schedule the last few, and next few days. David, I promise you well thought out replies, but my boy turns 10 and today is the big party. My ballistics training and trajectory analysis is confined to the laser tag arena for today! I have to show these runts whos boss LOL. Hope you are well my friends, and I will address as soon as I am able! Mike

It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week. I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go. Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE. "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go. Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE." 1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter. Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was: A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles. B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired. 2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position. 3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions," As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself. However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter. Hell Tom Ill do some limb sitting with ya anytime. Some dont get it, some never will get it.

Sounds like a WC defender ALL THE WAY. But what if the physical evidence was PLANTED, as there is EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE. Show it if ya got it!

David, Sure Ill grab up that book and give it a read. The Kellerman and McMahon statements are of course witness statements. Reliability questions abound in any witness statement. Problem is, none of the physical evidence supports this at all. We have no physical evidence beyond 3 shots. Mike

David, Man its good to hear from you again as well. Two horrid back surgeries later, and Im on the move, albeit slowly. I can only guess that Tom is making a scale reference here. The head of a rabbit with a small bore .22, and likewise the larger head of a man, and the larger projectile. I would have to disagree 100% with the author of the statement that the projectile were traveling 3000 to 4000 fps. Had this been the case, the secondary wound path would be huge. If we think of the head as a vessel filled with a liquid, as blood, and cerebra fluid is a liquid, and brain matter, which is gelatinous, a semi liquid, we soon realize that the material in the head will not compress very much at all. That pressure has to go somewhere. With a small bore, and hyper velocity that pressure would be monumental. I dare say, head removing. What I see in the z film is one shot from the rear. I can offer you my opinion on this. There are two types of spatter forward, in the direction of the bullet, and back, which as it implies moves back towards the shooter. Forward Spatter is higher in velocity, is much more diffuse, and generally far more prevalent. Back spatter is much lower in velocity, much less diffuse, and no where near as prevalent. WE can see that in the above example. So the questions become two fold. What do we see? What do we not see? What we see is a slight movement of the head forward. Consistent with a rifle bullet strike. We see a very diffuse cloud of matter exit the front of the head, forward spatter. We do not see this replicated out of the back of the head, which we certainly would, had we witnessed a front striking rear exiting shot. So why does the damage look so unusual? Because by nature it is hard to categorize head wounds. The head being filled with fluid is going to crack open where ever it dang well pleases. It has to, that pressure just has to go someplace. I have viewed a few head shots in my day, and one thing is certain, wounds created by exactly the same weapon, with exactly the same ammo, can look quite different. I do not know if this helped at all David. Mike Hey there buddy, Back surgery is horrible... had mine in '96... L4/5 herniation. Glad to hear/see your somewhat back in action. With regards to blood splatter and your declaring the shot from the rear... makes sense that we see blood on the seat, in the limo, on John C, the agents, windshield, rearview mirror BUT We can't forget Bobby Hargis being pelted with blood and debris and the multiple witnesses describing a halo of blood flying out the back of his head... What are your thoughts on a rear shot and almost simultaneously a frontal shot - given what we've heard about Collins Radio and the likelihood that those involved were in contact with each other... "SHOOT" could have caused 1, 2 or even 3 simultaneous shots. Any indications in what we see on Zap supporting this (beyond the slight forward movement of his head and then the violent fall backward. I suggest we don't see what we should see coming out of the back of the head for a very sinister reason. Almost 60 people standing right there - who were at least asked - also agree... this includes the SS, DPD, Senators, and civilians. And I hear you about head shot damage... who knows. Would you at least agree that whatever was described BEFORE HE LEFT PARKLAND would naturally be more reliable than the chain of events that ultimately gets him to Bethesda... and the wounds seen there, in a military hospital, surrounded by military personnel... etc etc etc. Of course it helped... thanks. BTW - on an aside - know about that show Top Shot? DJ David, I had a piece of metal lodged in my back, and a herniated disc shoved it into my sciatic nerve, it was cutting into it and well...most unpleasant. The statement about the halo coming out of the back of the head is our biggest indication that this is back spatter, and in the direction of the shooter. We do not see this on the z film. I contend the reason we do not see it is because it is far less visible, and well, the z film is sure not in high definition. Bobby Hargis did encounter debris, I have no doubt about that. The question here is, did something slam into Hargis, or did Hargis slam into something? I dare say it would be difficult to tell from the riders perspective. A .5 ounce of matter, which would be a pretty small piece, impacts at 2.5 ounces at just 5 miles an hour. (weight x speed)impact energy. So I have no doubt that Hargis would have felt matter hit him. Multiple shots is something I look at heavily some years ago. The thoughts I have on this, is that it is very unlikely. My reasoning is pretty simple here. We just do not see multiple impacts. The backward motion we see, in my opinion, can not be contributed to a bullet. Bullets just do not transfer that much energy to the target. Further we really only see one spatter pattern from the front of the head. With multiple shots we would have seen this pattern repeated for each shot. To address the medical evidence I must confess is a bit intimidating for a simple minded sob like myself. So very much of it relies on witness testimony. One thing I do acknowledge, is that all of the doctors seem to agree that what they see in the xrays, is representative of what they saw at Parkland. This is very disconcerting because we have different description of what was actually seen. So I ask myself, how can they agree on the xrays being accurate, and then disagree about what they saw? So it seems this whole mess goes right back to witness reliability. I can say that what we see in the xrays, is perfectly represented by the Warren Commissions findings that one bullet entered the rear. Honestly to me the medical evidence is the most difficult. Other issues I have with a front shot add to my belief that this never happened. Some of those other issues include: 1) The lack of a viable shooting position from the front left. This position has to accomplish a couple things. It has to leave a wound that does no left side damage to the Presidents head, which almost all the medical evidence agrees on, and it also has to leave Jackie unwounded. I have worked the map to death, and can still not find one location in the front of that limo that satisfies this. 2) The Xrays themselves show a back to front dispersal of particles. Meaning the bullet was intact upon entry and shattered moving forward. Further, we see no rear directing particle dispersal. 3) We simply have not one shred of evidence of any other shots being fired that day. Im looking for hard physical evidence, not unreliable witness testimony. These are just a few of my issues with a front to back shot. I'm sure you know me well enough to know that I do not believe in any evidence alteration. One of the main reasons I do not believe in this, is what we do have in evidence is to consistent with itself. Meaning the story we have been given, does fit the physical evidence. Perhaps I am naive, but I really believe if a mass alteration cover up occurred we could find it pretty readily with the technology we have in this day and age. To date, I have not read one credible account, nor witnessed one bonafide expert come forward to claim things have been altered. Now on a side note. You know I am pretty firmly in the LN camp. You probably also know I have my own JFK website. If you should ever decide that you would like to write an article for that site, please let me know. Id love to post it for you. I do believe that there are questions left unanswered, and I think these questions hamper not only research, but history in general. In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, these unanswered questions by the CT community promote research for the whole community. I have articles from both sides of the coin, and post them. Im glad to hear you are well buddy. Mike

That's because none of them were Oswald. Duncan, Refresh my memory here. Was not the average of the test that each rifleman hit 2 of 3 shots?

Jeez Luiz! Do you not see the insanity that exists in what you are saying? They blamed a man who was a best an average shot. His picture was emblazoned across every major newspaper for months. He was found guilty within 24 hours. Why, if the man who was accused of performing the "feat" was an average shot AT BEST, did they then get in EXPERTS to see if it could be done? Were they not testing to see IF OSWALD COULD DO IT? Seeing as how he was the one that they said DID DO IT? We know what the results of those tests were so it's a moot point. None of them could do what Oswald did unless the conditions were changed in favor of the shooter. I'm outta here... Like I didnt see that coming.....

There are two specific thoughts that spring to mind concerning your question: i) The raging debate that has taken place over the last 48 years has come down to whether Oswald was a decent shot or a poor shot. There has never been anyone make the claim that during his military service he was a crack/expert shot. He was never the best of the best. Right? ii) So whether he was decent or poor is of little consequence due to the fact that the Frazier tests and the CBS tests that were done involved nobody that was a poor or decent shot. Correct? The first set of Frazier tests in 1963 being done by Robert Frazier, Charles Killion and Courtland Cummingham. All experts in their field. The second set in 1964 by Miller, Stanley and Hendrix. All expert marksmen. The CBS tests in 1967 also took place with expert shots did they not? The 11 experts marksmen in this test consisted of 3 Maryland state policemen, 3 White Lab employees from the H.P. White Ballistics Laboratory where the tests took place, a weapons engineer named Howard Donahue, a ballistics technician, 2 sportsmen and an ex-paratrooper just back from Vietnam. You think this is comparable to Oswald's scorecards? Why not tests with average marksmen? Let's not get into the results and the conditions that the tests were conducted under because that's a different story. If they'd have gotten Roger Bannister to do a Beckley to 10th & Patton test I'm sure we'd all raise an eyebrow or three... Expert or non expert, it doesn't matter a toss. The undisputable fact is, that whoever took the shots, expert or non expert, from the 6th floor windwow or any other speculated firing location, got the job done. And where does that leave us? And Mike's question? You are saying that someone shot JFK from some location in Dealey Plaza and they may or may not have been an expert marksman. Wow. Case closed. No Wow's necessary. It leaves us, and everyone else, with the facts which I have posted in my reply to your post. That's a fact! Of course there was a "Wow" necessary or I wouldn't have included one. This fact you post is one that most people around the world knew about within 5 minutes of it happening. Tell us something we don't know, Duncan. I'm really not up for playing silly games. Why are you trying to drag this into complete banality? I answered Mike's question with some thoughts of my own. Did I waste my time again? If I did I won't bother engaging with him, or you, again. What was the point of the CBS and Frazier tests. Surely there was a point? Or were they wasting their time and a large amount of bullets? Come down off of that high horse of yours Lee, nobody is forcing you to contribute. If you don't like what I post, ie facts, then you are not obliged to reply or respond to me. The tests were done to try, and I emphasise the word try, to find out if a shooter, any shooter, could have fired all 3 shots from the 6th floor in the allocateted time. My point is simple. It doesn't matter how many tests were done, or are done in the future, or by experts or average marksmen, none of who were or will ever be Oswald. The job got done, that's it! Let's face it, Duncan: a. You have no clue how high or how low my horse is b. The only reason Mike came here is because your site went down Mike asked a question. I tried to engage him with some other inconvenient FACTS. You come along and tell us all that the universe is big. Whoopy-doo. Stating the obvious takes this nowhere. What next? You going to tell us that JFK was in an open limousine? How about that Jackie was sat next to him? Those are FACTS but we kinda know them already. The tests were NOT set up to simply to see whether the shots could be fired within the allocated time. Although that's just about what came out of them. They were to see if you could also hit a moving target in the allocated time. You know? The way Oswald was alleged to have done? So my question, AGAIN, is quite simple. If you want to see if the feat could be achieved why would you choose EXPERT MARKSMEN because the FACT is Oswald wasn't one. And you, and Mike, know as well as I do what the results of those three tests were when it came to hitting a moving target. So don't come on telling me to get off something that I'm not on. Why would a series of tests be conducted to replicate Oswald feat with EXPERTS when we all know the poor sod who got blames for doing it wasn't one? The point of the tests were to see if the feat could actually be achieved, NOT to prove if Oswald was or was not an expert marksman. Exactly Duncan. Although I have no idea what issue he has with (. Why would your site being down be an issue for me posting here, why would this seem to offend or irritate him so much?

Mentally awake, and morally straight. Now those are two things I do not associate with Fetzer. Bill Kelly however is a different matter. I shall look forward to hearing this. Thanks for your hard work Bill. Mike

There are two specific thoughts that spring to mind concerning your question: i) The raging debate that has taken place over the last 48 years has come down to whether Oswald was a decent shot or a poor shot. There has never been anyone make the claim that during his military service he was a crack/expert shot. He was never the best of the best. Right? ii) So whether he was decent or poor is of little consequence due to the fact that the Frazier tests and the CBS tests that were done involved nobody that was a poor or decent shot. Correct? The first set of Frazier tests in 1963 being done by Robert Frazier, Charles Killion and Courtland Cummingham. All experts in their field. The second set in 1964 by Miller, Stanley and Hendrix. All expert marksmen. The CBS tests in 1967 also took place with expert shots did they not? The 11 experts marksmen in this test consisted of 3 Maryland state policemen, 3 White Lab employees from the H.P. White Ballistics Laboratory where the tests took place, a weapons engineer named Howard Donahue, a ballistics technician, 2 sportsmen and an ex-paratrooper just back from Vietnam. You think this is comparable to Oswald's scorecards? Why not tests with average marksmen? Let's not get into the results and the conditions that the tests were conducted under because that's a different story. If they'd have gotten Roger Bannister to do a Beckley to 10th & Patton test I'm sure we'd all raise an eyebrow or three... Expert or non expert, it doesn't matter a toss. The undisputable fact is, that whoever took the shots, expert or non expert, from the 6th floor windwow or any other speculated firing location, got the job done. And where does that leave us? And Mike's question? You are saying that someone shot JFK from some location in Dealey Plaza and they may or may not have been an expert marksman. Wow. Case closed. No in point of fact what I am saying is I dont understand why the CTs use the Delgado Testimony to try and make the point that Oswald was a poor shot. The day Delgado and Oswald qualified together, Oswald scored a 191, and Delgado called him a poor shot because of that, saying he often got Maggies Drawers. While in the same testimony Delgado tells us what a great shot he is. What did he score that day???? 192....one single point higher than Oswald.

There are two specific thoughts that spring to mind concerning your question: i) The raging debate that has taken place over the last 48 years has come down to whether Oswald was a decent shot or a poor shot. There has never been anyone make the claim that during his military service he was a crack/expert shot. He was never the best of the best. Right? ii) So whether he was decent or poor is of little consequence due to the fact that the Frazier tests and the CBS tests that were done involved nobody that was a poor or decent shot. Correct? The first set of Frazier tests in 1963 being done by Robert Frazier, Charles Killion and Courtland Cummingham. All experts in their field. The second set in 1964 by Miller, Stanley and Hendrix. All expert marksmen. The CBS tests in 1967 also took place with expert shots did they not? The 11 experts marksmen in this test consisted of 3 Maryland state policemen, 3 White Lab employees from the H.P. White Ballistics Laboratory where the tests took place, a weapons engineer named Howard Donahue, a ballistics technician, 2 sportsmen and an ex-paratrooper just back from Vietnam. You think this is comparable to Oswald's scorecards? Why not tests with average marksmen? Let's not get into the results and the conditions that the tests were conducted under because that's a different story. If they'd have gotten Roger Bannister to do a Beckley to 10th & Patton test I'm sure we'd all raise an eyebrow or three... Expert or non expert, it doesn't matter a toss. The indisputable fact is, that whoever took the shots, expert or non expert, from the 6th floor windwow or any other speculated firing location, got the job done. Exactly and Oswald was more than capable of getting that job done.

As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet. Oy Never have so many been confused by so few..... yeah I know, it's difficult getting your hands not to mention your mind around an altered Zapruder Film isn't it? But fear not, lone nut, WCR/SBT trolls will slither to your rescue. After all, protectors of the current Dealey Plaza film-photo historical record demand obedience.... Carry on, Private! David, You know it really is not that hard for me to accept alteration. It only takes on thing for that to happen. An expert in the field to tell me it is so. So far, not one credible expert has done so. In as much as you wish you fit that bill, you dont. Good to see you though mein General. Mike

Nicely Played Jim! LOL

I would suggest before becoming distracted by nonsense, that you read the Warren Hearings and Report. Its readily apparent that you lack even the basic facts in the case!

You do know by stating the above, that you are accusing Mark Lane who is a member of my Forum, of being a xxxxx, don't you? Isnt Davey Boy a member of your forum as well? I have a feeling the reason Yugio has not joined is because he is way out of his league on your forum Duncan.

Got them, read them, still got them. Ive read Lane. Perhaps he would like to address the issues with Delgado with me.

Well hello Jimbo. I was hoping for a more formidable adversary on this topic, but I guess you will do. After all Ive been gone for a time, and you would be a good warm up until the big boys arrive. So tell me. Why is this clown and his testimony so important to you chaps in attempting to prove Oswald was a poor marksman?

David, Man its good to hear from you again as well. Two horrid back surgeries later, and Im on the move, albeit slowly. I can only guess that Tom is making a scale reference here. The head of a rabbit with a small bore .22, and likewise the larger head of a man, and the larger projectile. I would have to disagree 100% with the author of the statement that the projectile were traveling 3000 to 4000 fps. Had this been the case, the secondary wound path would be huge. If we think of the head as a vessel filled with a liquid, as blood, and cerebra fluid is a liquid, and brain matter, which is gelatinous, a semi liquid, we soon realize that the material in the head will not compress very much at all. That pressure has to go somewhere. With a small bore, and hyper velocity that pressure would be monumental. I dare say, head removing. What I see in the z film is one shot from the rear. I can offer you my opinion on this. There are two types of spatter forward, in the direction of the bullet, and back, which as it implies moves back towards the shooter. Forward Spatter is higher in velocity, is much more diffuse, and generally far more prevalent. Back spatter is much lower in velocity, much less diffuse, and no where near as prevalent. WE can see that in the above example. So the questions become two fold. What do we see? What do we not see? What we see is a slight movement of the head forward. Consistent with a rifle bullet strike. We see a very diffuse cloud of matter exit the front of the head, forward spatter. We do not see this replicated out of the back of the head, which we certainly would, had we witnessed a front striking rear exiting shot. So why does the damage look so unusual? Because by nature it is hard to categorize head wounds. The head being filled with fluid is going to crack open where ever it dang well pleases. It has to, that pressure just has to go someplace. I have viewed a few head shots in my day, and one thing is certain, wounds created by exactly the same weapon, with exactly the same ammo, can look quite different. I do not know if this helped at all David. Mike

Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?

As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet. Oy Never have so many been confused by so few.....

No doubt after that 10-minute discussion Ayoob will publish an article completely reversing his opinion. I suggest no one should hold their breath waiting for Ayoob's change of heart. This month's publication (in local newspaper):-----------"Altered Evidence" Next month's publication (February):-------------------- The myth of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" The month thereafter (March):---------------------------"Shot#2/aka Z313"* *Since I have already been "invited" to send the forensic; ballistic; and pathological facts of the Z313 impact to a true expert in forensic sciences, I see no reason as to why not go ahead and send a copy of the publishing to Ayoob as well. If one were that knowledgeable in regards to Ayoob, then they would also know that he considered the Carcano as being "junk". That is until such time as he was offered the opportunity to test fire one for himself! And, although I long ago presented Ayoob's complete article on shooting the Carcano rifle on this forum, would not waste time doing it again even if I could post attachments. However, since Anthony Marsh (who copies about anything he can claim credit for) made full copies of this article, it can be found on his website. Nice thing about Ayoob, when given the opportunity to evaluate "factual" evidence, he is fully willing to accept a change in ideas. P.S. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale" Being "not characteristic" does not imply not possible! Hell! Anyone who has shot rabbits with a standard "gilded" .22 round and a "hollow-point" .22 round would know this. One does not need Ayoob to recognize this simple fact. The simple fact is, that for the most part, the head shot impact at Z313 is totally consistant with what a FMJ Carcano bullet can and will do when it strikes and penetrates the skull in the manner which IT DID! Well, I either lied or changed my mind! The proposed schedule for publication within the local newspaper is as follows: =================================================================================================================== January (complete & published):-----------"Altered Evidence" This month's publication (last week in February):-------------------- The myth of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" Last week in March-------------------------------------The Survey Plats & Survey Data (to include Shot#3)* The month thereafter (April):---------------------------"Shot#2/aka Z313"** Notes:** The "Altered Evidence" as well as "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" are each two-page publications. The "Survey Plats & Survey Data" will be a four-page publication. The "Shot#2/akaZ313" impact will most probably be a two-page insert with the second publishing being done in May. For those who are already on the "distribution" list, your copies will arrive as usual. Tom P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone. Good to see ya still around Tom. I wonder if, and when, these yokels will ever really understand wound ballistics. I also spent a bit of time with Ayoob. I took a PR-24 course he offered once. Anyhow, Im back around and hope to catch up to ya soon. Mike

Never been refuted? That's comical, and delusional. Well, don't be bashful Michael. Tell us who refuted it and give us a link to the refutation. How comical of you to ask after all your posts were removed from Duncans place. This ridiculous theory is hardly worth another glance.