Mike Williams

Never been refuted? That's comical, and delusional.

Tell me Einstein. What lies beneath the dark areas of his face which I have filled in, other than his jaw? Duncan,

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. No, it means you are just as wrong as he is. BK No, it means that i'm open minded to anything that anyone has to say on the assassination. As far as I am aware, other than the John Mcadams site, my forum, JFK Assassination Forum is the only available venue where anyone has the opportunity to debate freely and openly with David Von Pein. I don't see his critics, including you Bill, Jim DiEugenio, or anyone else rushing to join to debate DVP. The invite is open to anyone to join and debate with him, so don't hide in your DVP free comfort zones, after all, you have all of the solid unimpeachable facts to destroy any of his arguments, right? Duncan Duncan, And why do you think that is? Why do they hide like so many roaches, and not face the man in an open forum? Gee......I wonder..... I for one would love to see it, but who can blame them? I mean really, who likes to be made to look foolish? If you think Jim DiEugenio is ever going to face DVP heads up, your wrong. Not going to happen. Jim DiEugenio aviods DVP like the plague.....but who knows, I mean registration only take seconds.....

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. Duncan, "great researchers" don't have to continually misrepresent people who disagree with them, evade more issues than they address and rely almost totally on ad hominem smears. But tell me Duncan. Do you believe John Connally's claim that the bullet fell from his leg and was retrieved by a nurse who put it in her pocket, and District Attorney Wade who said the nurse held it in her hand, telling him that she had the bullet that came from Connally's leg, and that the nurse told Officer Nolan that the envelope she gave him contained a "bullet" from Connally's leg? And do you believe the FBI's own documentation, stating that they sent TWO bullets in from Parkland? Where did the other one go, Duncan? The ONLY logical explanation is, that the envelope Nolan brought in to the DPD, was altered to appear to have contained fragments from Connally's wrist. That's how they made the actual bullet from Connally's thigh disappear. Read Bell's description of events and then listen to Nolan's. They were not even remotely similar. That could NOT have been Bell who handed him that envelope. Robert, According to you everyone attacks and misrepresents you.

Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it. Because the record need to remain straight.

If there's anyone who comes across this site by accident Greg, University students, high school students, people who have just become interested in the case then I want them to know that there is EVERY REASON to question EVERY ASPECT of this case and not to fall for any of the mind-games and dogmatic rhetoric that is printed on this forum by proponents and supporters of the Warren Commission. I guess that's why I keep coming back although I do sit and think that I could be spending this valuable time with my beautiful daughters. I am thinking of putting it all to bed to be honest Greg. I believe I need a rest from it all. There was a person, I forget his name, who once said "How convenient it is for leaders that the people they lead do not think." Greg, Now thats the stuff the really matters! Congrats on the new Grand baby and have a great trip! Mike

Well it would go a long way if you could prove the Tomlinson phone call. You are going to have to do better than this, I do not operate on supposition and hearsay. You are going to have to have some evidence. That's what I mean by not easily fooled. All this shows is what a newbie you are. In 1966 Ray Marcus called up Tomlinson and asked him about the bullet. During the interview, Tomlinson told him about this phone call. I just called Ray and talked to him about the call, which he verified. BTW, he wrote about it at the time in one of his monographs. I'd give you his number but he doesn't have patience with SBF. (The F is for fantasists) Another source for that exchange is Lifton's Best Evidence (See p. 591) On that page you will see reference to another bizarre incident which reveals the immediate cover up about CE 399. O Wright wrote a three page report about his activities on 11/22. The most important thing he did on that day was to turn over the so-called stretcher bullet to the SS. Guess what Mr. Williams? That somehow slipped his mind and is not in his official report. Although he recalled it perfectly for TInk Thompson. Now, you and Duncan get back to DVP and ask him what you should say. While you are at it, ask him why he didn't ask VB those eight questions on this subject as I listed in my article about him. I take it the "SB" stands for single bullet eh? You are a presumptuous one aren't you? So as for your citation, it is basically just hearsay, correct? Which means it is no evidence at all, and useless. This is all it could be without a direct quote from Tomlinson, which of course has not been "interpreted" by some conspiracy quack. Is there anything that does not involve relying on hearsay? By the way, I see you are still associating me with DVP. Is this supposed to be some sort of insult? I should hope not, as it is ever apparent that he makes you look foolish at every turn. Dont hate what ya cant whip there Jimmy. SO why is it you refuse to debate DVP openly?

David, For one it has no exit, which clearly, in soft tissue of the neck, it certainly would have. Not if JFK were hit with an unconventional round -- which is what the autopsists suspected and the neck x-ray confirms. Factually incorrect. Black Dog Man at Z190. Witness Rosemary Willis described this individual as a "conspicuous" person who "disappeared the next instant." A HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo reported a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the "region of his hands," consistent with a shooter. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm The SBT is physically impossible given JFK's proven T3 back wound. The Tague Frag Theory is impossible given the fact that a bullet fragment needed to travel 85 yards on a straight-line trajectory into the teeth of a hard swirling wind and still retain an impact velocity sufficient to shatter concrete and wound a man standing several yards away. I love that one! It never loses its humor! I think the Tague Frag theory is hilarious. Care to demonstrate how a bullet fragment maintains a straight-line trajectory into the teeth of a hard swirling wind? You mean a 13 mph head wind? You mean like that kind of wind? By the way this was hardly a gale. A 5 grain fragment would have been over 900 fps when it reached Tague.

David, For one it has no exit, which clearly, in soft tissue of the neck, it certainly would have. Not if JFK were hit with an unconventional round -- which is what the autopsists suspected and the neck x-ray confirms. Factually incorrect. Black Dog Man at Z190. Witness Rosemary Willis described this individual as a "conspicuous" person who "disappeared the next instant." A HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo reported a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the "region of his hands," consistent with a shooter. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm The SBT is physically impossible given JFK's proven T3 back wound. The Tague Frag Theory is impossible given the fact that a bullet fragment needed to travel 85 yards on a straight-line trajectory into the teeth of a hard swirling wind and still retain an impact velocity sufficient to shatter concrete and wound a man standing several yards away. I love that one! It never loses its humor!

Pat, What you're claiming is that the fragment that completed the circumference of the entry hole was one that fell to the table after the scalp was reflected? If that's so, why did Boswell say "when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound"? Your explanation for why you believe the Parkland witnesses were mistaken does not account for Sibert and O'Neil who were both at the entire autopsy and presumably saw that head wound from all manner of angles. Nor does it account for the morticians. Nor does it account for Clint Hill who was spreadeagled over the limo all the way to the hospital. I'm not trying to prove anything. Unlike yourself, I do not have any beliefs regarding the head wounds and what caused them, I'm keeping an open mind. However, it is clear to me that simply dismissing the vast number of witnesses who saw a hole in the back of the head as mistaken is no way to discover the truth. You may be right, the hole in the back of the head may be "mythical," but you certainly haven't proved it. Cheers, Martin Martin, And wise you are. There is no evidence of a shot from the front as we shall soon see.

Hi Mike: I tried to post this on the Ed Forum for the edification of Mr. Harris, Mark etc. but I am having difficulties with this new computer!! If you would could you post it for me/us? It is from John Hunt's collection to me and shows the entire front face of the envelope. As I was indicating in my message I wanted to attach to the image; I have personally handled this envelope at NARA II and there is absolutely no doubt that no initials were ever erased and/or written over. Indeed, all of the writing on the envelope is in "ink"/pen. Gary Murr

Well it would go a long way if you could prove the Tomlinson phone call. You are going to have to do better than this, I do not operate on supposition and hearsay. You are going to have to have some evidence. That's what I mean by not easily fooled.

David, For one it has no exit, which clearly, in soft tissue of the neck, it certainly would have. Another is position. There is no tenable shooting location for this. Mercury bullets are far better left to James Bond. Mercury eats lead, its a known fact. Even under the best of circumstances these bullets have a very small shelf life. But, in theory the bullet would stop rapidly inside the skull, as the mercury would cause an expanding cloud. Mercury does not and would not create a field of tiny fragments, it would create a moderate to dense cloud of mercury in the head. This would be obvious a mile away. As for FMJ bullets there are many examples of both fragmenting and remaining stable. One thing that always strikes me is what Dr. Petty had to say. "Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger weapons." This to me excludes the notion of a fragmenting bullet, both pre-fragmented by design, and a fragmenting FMJ. I have yet to find a convincing argument for the idea that this bullet broke up in the head. Mike

Jim, I will think if you look at what I have posted here my comments are made in relation to the claims that the envelope was forged, which clearly it is not. In my opinion the 399 bullet was the one found at parkland, however, if you have a reasonable argument against it, lay it on me. I have been known to have a change of opinion based on solid evidence, but be warned, I am not easily fooled.

Thanks David thats the one I was looking for.

I have never been in the plaza during a shooting test, so therefore I have to take the word of those who have. From all accounts it is very difficult to determine direction. One thing you really need to know is that the backward movement can be attributed to many things, but it certainly cannot be attributed to a frontal shot. The laws of physics prove this well. The one thing that kills this idea is that we know there was no bullet that remained in the head. So any shot had to be transiting and not just perforating. The energy transfers from transiting shots is very very small, in ANY type of projectile. This has been proven time and again by physics. In fact I did a post some time ago showing how many weapons would need to fire to simulate the impact of just 110 ft lbs, that of a human punch (average punch). Ill see if I can dig that out. I must also say that my calculations were very conservative and very likely the energy would be far less, as in non elastic transfer most of the energy is consumed by heat/deformation. I think the throat has two possibilities. 1 the SBT 2 Fragment from the head shot is completely logical. This is in no way an entry wound. Of that we can be certain.

David, At one time I had a pdf og the back yard photos and they were enlarged and quite clear. I think this may have taken a dive with my old computer. Any idea where I can find some large and clear copies to look over? I would sure appreciate it. Mike

Ummm. I think you might be confused, Mike. Oswald had NO nitrates on his cheek. NONE at all. Yet, he did have nitrates on his hands. What does this mean? Well, it's quite simple. He could have easily picked up nitrates on his hands from handling the boxes and other materials in the TSBD building as a NORMAL function of his work. Yet, we know that if he fired a rifle that day he would NECESSARILY have had to acquire a nitrate splash pattern on his right cheek at the very least (and possibly beyond). This is not conjecture but well established fact. That's what happens when a person fires a rifle. I know because I've done it and so do you. The problem is this: He had no nitrates on his cheeks--none at all! I guess he could have washed them off? If he did how could he still have nitrates on his hands then? Read the FBI and DPD reports for yourself. That's what they say. None on his face, but lots on his hands. What do you think happened? Maybe he washed his face with his feet? That's odd Greg, when the FBI tested the nitrate test on men known to have fired a weapon its accuracy failed miserably. Not at all to mention that a closed bolt weapon may or may not leave nitrates, depending on many factors.

Greg feel free to visit my site and refute anything I have written on the ballistics.

I have to tell you David I have not read anything that has proven them fakes, the most convincing things I have read/watched seem to authenticate them. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html Credentials: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/cv.pdf http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0301/03.html Most of the alteration crowd seem to be using measurements which Lamson show here to be incorrect. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14138&st=120&p=165186&hl=yardstickentry165186

Jim, First off congrats on finding the fortitude to step up and post for yourself. Kudos to you! I do not at all want you to find that as smashing, I am sincere. I have always been of the opinion that if a man has something to say, he ought to say it himself. This question about Oswald picking up the rifle seems a bit odd to me. It would seem the evidence speaks for itself in this regard. The order is in his hand writing, to his PO Box, with the fake ID in his wallet, not to mention that he was smart enough to allow himself to be photographed with the weapon. I would say that since we have photos of him with the rifle, it is pretty fair to say he picked it up. Unless of course you can prove the photos are faked, which is highly doubtful. The paraffin tests at the very best are inconclusive. I have written on this before. look it up. They certainly are in no way exonerating, now are they? You would have to prove that to me. I find nothing in this evidence that clears Oswald and as I said it is at best inconclusive. Thanks for coming out of the woodwork. I look forward to the exchange of thoughts. However, I am Mike, not David, and I ask you keep that in mind. David is someone I have respect for, he has done some excellent work, but there are things he and I disagree on, as I am my own man with my own opinion and thoughts. Mike

http://www.jfkballistics.com/fsfhbj.html I don't really think he is backpedaling. I think he is clarifying. He says the President was knocked forward. Indicating a hit from behind. I note he says that the President was knocked forward, out of a depression in the seat.

Jack, Hell its good enough to be accepted in court. While I do agree with you that spatter will be different, there are some characteristics that are consistent. The fine mist and higher volume of forward spatter being one, among many. I do believe it is a developing science, but I think it has as much potential as fingerprints. There are some laws of physics we just can not get around. Mike

Disarm with charm... Without a doubt, the most difficult thing here is to arrive with an open mind and the possibility, however remote, that one is completely wrong - given the information to prove such - and the humility to admit it. Besides, we were back channelling a brokered peace long before we started the thread... got to keep up appearances, no? The simple fact of the matter Greg is that I find the same thing in Joseph that I find in you, and as you recall we had a rough patch as well. I find you both to be good guys, who have your beliefs as I do mine. Wrong or right is there somewhere and the fact is I feel we are both right on some points and wrong on others, its the nature of this beast. Best to both, Mike

David good stuff! Give me a little bit to work on a reply today was hectic as the dickins! Mike