Mike Williams

Precisely! This is what makes the thought of silencers to ridiculous for any one who knows ballistics to contemplate. Wrong, Mike. Once again, you want to believe something so you claim it as true. From patspeer.com, chapter 20: While reading about the CIA’s overthrow of the Guatemalan Government in 1954, I discovered that, among the supply lists, lists of communists to be killed after the take-over, and other documents released in 1997, there was a CIA Manual on Assassination. In this manual there were several relevant passages. At one point, when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of assassinating people with firearms, the manual relates "Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be high.” (Note that the propaganda chief for this operation was future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who, shortly before his death, admitted an involvement in the Kennedy assassination to his son, and claimed David Morales, one of the CIA's para-military trainers for the Guatemalan Operation, and presumably one of those handing out the CIA' Manual on Assassination, was also involved.) Elsewhere, the manual deals specifically with the issue of subsonic charges, noting “pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced,” and then cautioning “Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.” Further confirmation came from studying the supply lists prepared for the Guatemalan op. On one such list there is the surprising item ".22 cal. rifles w/silencers." As larger caliber rifles were available, this gives a clear indication that .22 caliber rifles with silencers were a preferred assassination weapon, and that the 100 yard limit mentioned in the assassination manual was true for these weapons. While I've taken a lot of guff from shooters about this, as they all seem convinced that a sniper rifle firing a small subsonic bullet would be nearly worthless at the distances of Dealey Plaza, I suspect their concern is overstated. Geoffrey Boothroyd, the English Firearms expert who advised James Bond creator Ian Fleming on the weapons described in his books, once famously wrote Fleming: "Silencers. These I do not like. The only excuse for using one is a .22 rifle using low-velocity ammunition, i.e., below the speed of sound." Former sniper Craig Roberts, in his book Kill Zone, moreover, wrote of his suspicion that a "CIA-issued .22 caliber Model 74 Winchester silenced sniper rifle" was fired at Kennedy, wounding him in the throat. In 2007, at a swap meet, I came across an old book entitled Everyday Ballistics that gave me more reason to believe a silencer was used on 11-22-63. This book had been the property of the U.S. Navy. In the chapter on bullet drop, it reports that a fully charged .22 long rifle bullet would only drop a foot or so over a distance of 270 feet, the approximate distance from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building to Kennedy at the moment of the single-bullet theory. In a subsequent chapter, it makes the surprising assertion that a subsonic bullet fired at 1000 fps would have less wind deflection than a similar bullet fired at a faster speed. It goes on to note that a .22 long rifle bullet fired at 1000 fps. in a 5 MPH cross wind would suffer less than two inches of deflection at 100 yards and less than a half inch deflection at 50 yards. From this it seems clear that a well-practiced shooter firing a subsonic .22 caliber rifle or M-16 from the Dal-Tex Building could easily have hit Kennedy, or Connally, or both. So here is what I suggest you do. Study the ballistics of these rounds for yourself and then make a determination. Or if you like I can do it for you. I recommend this, because on any given day you can pick up a rifle magazine, or other publication, and find any number of inaccuracies involving ballistics. I've done this work before, and would be more than happy to do so again and address your issues above Pat, should you have any interest in it. Additionally, would you like to qualify your "once again" remark? Mike, it doesn't matter what you or I think about the ballistics of a .22 subsonic round. What matters--as far as its possible use--is what shooters were thinking in 1963. And all indications are that the CIA was training assassins to believe a .22 subsonic round was effective up to 100 yards. However. A study of the ballistics of this type of usage might prove useful in understanding its absurdity. Using a .22 SS to put up to someones head, sure. Silenced, Sure its subsonic. Expecting it to break the skin at over 50 yards, rather comical at the very least, out right preposterous at best.

David, I sure understand where you are coming from. I really think in many instances the old "perception becomes reality" phrase has its place. There has been so much written, incorrectly, about the rifle that eventually it does tend to take on a "fact" based tone. I can address some of your concerns above, but will be the first to admit, I have never run down the money orders etc, so please understand, if I do not address something, it is simply because I don't have enough information on it, not because I wish to hedge any issue. I really do not think that Oswald would have to be a day to day sniper to make these shots, they simply were not that difficult, interesting though is the fact that the closer shots would have been more difficult. I will be posting an article today called "the easiest shot" By Joe Elliot. Its a very good look at the alleged 3 shots and rates their difficulty. In asking about the 20 year old rifle and ammo. I really do not think that Oswald purchased that rifle to kill JFK. I think he simply bought what he could afford, and he was a bit of a thrift with money. I also think we have indications that this was a spontaneous decision by him. I mean how many people would go into something like this with only 4 rounds of ammo? Could this be an indication that he did not have time to acquire more ammo before the event, indicating a rash decision to do the deed? I do not think we can rule out these thoughts. I really see no reason for the rifle to be considered inadequate. It is still a popular hunting round in Europe and is quite well known for deep penetration and its light recoil. Almost the best of both worlds. As for finger prints. Have you ever, in researching something, come across something that just made your jaw drop? I have such an experience when researching the "Rifle Condition" article on my site about the scope. Frazier tells us that the scope was removed for fingerprinting, or at least he thought it was. This seems logical to me, as the scope is mounted on the receiver, and this area is a natural "balance" point of the rifle. What that means to us is that this place on the rifle is an obviously good carry location. If you grab the rifle here, it balances well and can be easily carried. SO to me this was a logical place to disassemble and look for prints. I looked all over for procedures police use for printing rifles, and had little success, what I did find was an article that, as I said, made my jaw drop. Ill include some here for you. "Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature [1,2,3] and the judicial system [4]. Fingerprint Specialists at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms San Francisco Laboratory Center have had, however, some success in this endeavor1. In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms. Although successful recovery occurred in approximately one of ten firearms, it should be understood that not all identifiable latent prints may have been left by an offender. Some developed latent prints, for example, are subsequently identified as belonging to a person involved in the collection of the evidence2. " So out of 1000 firearms they only found 114 prints, in 93 weapons, and that was with modern technology! All of a sudden the issue that they did not find many prints becomes a bit less significant in the face of this. Here is the link to the original source: Here You know I have given this issue some thought. What seems to strike me is that in the LN scenario, Oswald acted alone. The thing that most do not consider is that he did not have to do this. He could at any time have changed his mind and simply packed up the rifle and moved on. Now I consider that Williams was likely up there eating lunch, and have to consider that if Williams would have stayed up there Oswald may not have acted at all. Possibly the reason Oswald moved into position so late, is that he was waiting for Williams to leave. I do not think we can rule this out. I note that Rowland sees the gunman for less than 30 seconds, in the west windows, and he sees the colored man in the snipers nest or near it, but he never sees them at the same time. It has to be considered that Oswald was up there and was simply hiding until Williams left. I need to look into this a bit more, admittedly. This may be the greatest area of debate in the history of the JFK assassination. In my opinion, for what ever that's worth, I see no evidence of a front shot. I am going to be very frank with you about this, the medical evidence is something I struggle to understand. I'm not inclined towards it. However the blood spatter is something I understand very well. Trajectory is also something I understand very well, and these two fundamental physics based concepts are all one needs to rule out a frontal shot, in my opinion. what I really need to do is write an article for my website about this. The forum here limits the number of photos you can put in a post, and this is something that is difficult to express in just text without the aid of graphics. The basis for my opinion revolves around two things. The first is location. We know that JFK had no left side head damage. This is critical in examining a frontal head shot. I have not at any time been able to locate a position, in the front of the limo, that would not have caused left head damage. Perhaps one photo that may get at least the very basic idea of this is from the laser tests. I will include it here. Other positions along this line offer similar results, but again, it would take more graphics to show each of them and prove the point. The other basis for my opinion is the blood spatter. Pat Speer and I have been talking about this lately. Some things we do know abut spatter, is that there are two types with gunshot wounds. Forward spatter, in the direction of the bullet, and Back spatter, which flows back towards the shooter, or the opposite direction of the bullets travel. Pat found a citation that said: " Tom Bevel and Ross M. Gardner, Bloodstain Pattern Analysis with an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction, 2008. "Forward spatter patterns when present tend to be more symmetrical than back spatter patterns. This is probably due to the primary force of the impact being transmitted in the direction of the projectile. Back spatter patterns tend to be less defined..." Pat's contention is that in saying that forward spatter "when present" is an indication that forward spatter is less dense and less obvious, however this is incorrect. The reason Mr Gardner said "when present" is simply because not all gunshot wounds have forward spatter, because not all gunshot wounds exit the target. The "when present" comment has nothing to do with its physical characteristics, and in fact Mr Gardner clears this up for us in Pats quote when he tells us "Back spatter patterns tend to be less defined..." Forward spatter is a very dense cloud of fine, high velocity, blood mist drops. Back spatter is far less defined and more of a spurt than a spray. Please forgive the terms, I simply know no other way to describe it. Back spatter is far less defined, because it is far less dense. In the Zapruder film we see only one dense cloud of fine blood mist, coming out the front of the head, indicating a rear hit. However we also have the statements of Robert Frazier in his Shaw trial testimony. Frazier tells us that the blood and matter was as far forward as the hood ornament and on the outside of the front windshield! Mind you that this was traveling against an 8mph limo speed AND a 13 mph head wind. This is significant. This would be an impossibility for back spatter. I really need to do an article on this as well. Same graphics issues. LOL I agree with you there. I would love to see this work when you are done, and if I can offer any help with a rifle timeline let me know, Id be glad to give you what I have so far. Hey I know this testimony as well, so no worries on the citations. The issues I have are varied on this stuff. First the manhole cover has never been tested to prove a gunshot. This makes it almost impossible to comment on without speculation. As for the man pocketing the bullet. Again this is pretty speculative as we really have no evidence of it. I understand there is a video out there where someone claims the man pocketed it then gave it to his son to take to school. Now come on, that's really kind of crazy if you ask me. I mean it's only the most epic murder of the century after all. I agree with you 100% on the oddity of a miss as epic as one would have to be in order to hit the Main St curb. I myself have considered many different things in this regard, and none seem to explain to any satisfaction this issue. Frankly here I have to say at this point, I do not know. I can only speculate. If my two options were only East or West, I would pick East. Let me explain. In the East window, I can take a shot coming up Houston, I can take a shot right after the tree and have the SS car under the tree and not be in their line of sight, and I have the entire rest of Elm with very little left to right angle. In the West window I have far less time with the target in the straight away position, and almost any other shot is passing left to right, which is far more difficult. I would have undoubtedly picked the East window, if those were my only two options. I really need to do some more work for the website, that may more clearly define my position on some of this stuff, but at least I have offered some kind of explanation for my thinking. I certainly need to do more on the money order and rifle acquisition by Oswald. I need to look into those items more. I concentrate mostly on the physics and ballistics of the shooting, and that takes time to really analyze. I pretty well have that work done, and need to look further, admittedly. Best, Mike P.S. I sure apologize for that David, sincerely. I tried to change it, but do not see that option. Perhaps a Mod can do this for me? How about "Mike Williams jumps the gun?" LOL

Precisely! This is what makes the thought of silencers to ridiculous for any one who knows ballistics to contemplate. Wrong, Mike. Once again, you want to believe something so you claim it as true. From patspeer.com, chapter 20: While reading about the CIA’s overthrow of the Guatemalan Government in 1954, I discovered that, among the supply lists, lists of communists to be killed after the take-over, and other documents released in 1997, there was a CIA Manual on Assassination. In this manual there were several relevant passages. At one point, when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of assassinating people with firearms, the manual relates "Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be high.” (Note that the propaganda chief for this operation was future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who, shortly before his death, admitted an involvement in the Kennedy assassination to his son, and claimed David Morales, one of the CIA's para-military trainers for the Guatemalan Operation, and presumably one of those handing out the CIA' Manual on Assassination, was also involved.) Elsewhere, the manual deals specifically with the issue of subsonic charges, noting “pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced,” and then cautioning “Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.” Further confirmation came from studying the supply lists prepared for the Guatemalan op. On one such list there is the surprising item ".22 cal. rifles w/silencers." As larger caliber rifles were available, this gives a clear indication that .22 caliber rifles with silencers were a preferred assassination weapon, and that the 100 yard limit mentioned in the assassination manual was true for these weapons. While I've taken a lot of guff from shooters about this, as they all seem convinced that a sniper rifle firing a small subsonic bullet would be nearly worthless at the distances of Dealey Plaza, I suspect their concern is overstated. Geoffrey Boothroyd, the English Firearms expert who advised James Bond creator Ian Fleming on the weapons described in his books, once famously wrote Fleming: "Silencers. These I do not like. The only excuse for using one is a .22 rifle using low-velocity ammunition, i.e., below the speed of sound." Former sniper Craig Roberts, in his book Kill Zone, moreover, wrote of his suspicion that a "CIA-issued .22 caliber Model 74 Winchester silenced sniper rifle" was fired at Kennedy, wounding him in the throat. In 2007, at a swap meet, I came across an old book entitled Everyday Ballistics that gave me more reason to believe a silencer was used on 11-22-63. This book had been the property of the U.S. Navy. In the chapter on bullet drop, it reports that a fully charged .22 long rifle bullet would only drop a foot or so over a distance of 270 feet, the approximate distance from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building to Kennedy at the moment of the single-bullet theory. In a subsequent chapter, it makes the surprising assertion that a subsonic bullet fired at 1000 fps would have less wind deflection than a similar bullet fired at a faster speed. It goes on to note that a .22 long rifle bullet fired at 1000 fps. in a 5 MPH cross wind would suffer less than two inches of deflection at 100 yards and less than a half inch deflection at 50 yards. From this it seems clear that a well-practiced shooter firing a subsonic .22 caliber rifle or M-16 from the Dal-Tex Building could easily have hit Kennedy, or Connally, or both. So here is what I suggest you do. Study the ballistics of these rounds for yourself and then make a determination. Or if you like I can do it for you. I recommend this, because on any given day you can pick up a rifle magazine, or other publication, and find any number of inaccuracies involving ballistics. I've done this work before, and would be more than happy to do so again and address your issues above Pat, should you have any interest in it. Additionally, would you like to qualify your "once again" remark?

And will continue to do so as long as you keep spewing incorrect information. These good folks deserve better. So you have an issue with me determining I was incorrect in Greer's braking, and had to correct my opinion? Is this not what good research is about? Robert if your going to accuse me of something you should at least get the particulars correct. You asked me if I examined a shot using CAD, to which I told you I never use CAD for calculating trajectory, as one does not need CAD to manage that. At some point someone asked about using CAD, and I told them I used Rhino CAD. Of course I never used CAD for trajectory, I used it for work lol. You seem unable to make the connection here, which I am sure is a surprise to no one. You have since claimed I lied about this, which I did not and have not. I do not and have never used CAD for JFK trajectory work. Here is a tip. The reason you cannot see the "artifacts" in my copy is because they don's exist. They also do not exist in your photo Robert. In your photos there are shadows etc. Mine is crystal clear. Others have told you this as well. However you refuse to acknowledge that my copy was far superior and in fact shows no sign of the forgery you proclaim. Hunt's that I posted: Your degraded and shadow ridden version: Obviously the bottom of yours has shadows that you contend are erasure marks etc clearly you were wrong: http://www.jfkballistics.com/CE842.html My article clearly proves that. Notice how not one person has come to your aid on this issue? Why do you suppose that is? Because they see your incorrect. Bill Kelly even very correctly suggest we move on past this and examine the fragments, which I am in full agreement with. I would not bet on that, more on this coming soon to a theater near you. And those who know me know I don't say it if I cant show it. I'm working on this article just as we speak, along with a few others. Your gonna wanna rethink this pretty soon I am guessing. I really wish I knew where you got this from, I have never said any such thing. I said that JFK is smiling broadly and waving in frames near 180 Robert. This is when you claim he is grimacing and shielding his face. I have clearly shown you this time and again, if you don't believe that here is the post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063 The reason I refuse to answer you after repeating my self far to many times, is that it never sinks in with you. Your theories are a ballistic nightmare, and completely notional. Your very base of "facts" are assumptions. Frankly they are a joke. And as you can see they get little support. If I am an imbecile Robert, and I can see through your sham of a theory, then I am just as certain the rest of these good folks can as well. If not all they need do is read back over my posts in reply to your foolishness. Here's one to start with: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063 Remember this is part of your back peddling about silencers and high power rifles! LOL! Enjoy the read folks.

David, And I thank you in return. Sometimes I guess good folks can just get off on the wrong foot, and well I need to be a bit less harsh, that's just always been my way, which certainly does not mean its the right way. Now on the Quantico issue. Man I think while I was there I heard just about every story about Carlos imaginable. His visits to the range often really boosted it, and after awhile you just hear repeats. I never in all my time there ever yeard of a recreation. I have made a few phone calls, and of course this has yielded no new info. My next course of action might be to call Carlos wife Joe. I generally call her once or twice a year. Perhaps she would have a memory of Carlos saying something about that. I'm really on a cold trail, and it is really the only thing I can think of to try next. As for Carlos training. He would have been really on the learn as you burn edge. He was teaching while he was developing the program. In the Marine Corp all men are riflemen. Its taught at basic training. However then you go to AIT, or advanced infantry training, if you are going to have an infantry MOS. There is much more field craft taught here than basic. You also receive training in your MOS (Military occupational specialty) mortars, machine gunners, whatever. If one would go to be a Sniper now, you would likely end up at the school in Quantico, advanced field craft the .308 and .50 cal rifles etc. Its a whole new world. Snipers hunt alone or in teams, strategy and tactics are completely different for them. Carlos, and his accomplishments are the heart and soul of the program. Interesting in that he developed the teaching techniques by actually doing them! I do not know the level of training others would have given him, but I can sure attest to the amount he contributed to all of us. Marksmanship was his game, and being a southern boy, he had a knack for the field I suppose. If you can not tell, I have a soft spot for this guy. He was a little guy with a huge presence. Anyhow I don't know if that answers you at all, but the long and the short is that he would have taught by experience far more than he learned. Here is the thing that gets me about Roberts alleged citation of Hathcock. I have been to the plaza and looked at the shots. I can not in any stretch of the imagination consider them difficult. I can not by any means even conceive of how Carlos would have considered them difficult, and I certainly cant imagine him saying he "couldn't do" anything involving a rifle. I know one thing for sure, I would have never told him I "could not do" something. He would not tolerate that. Remember this is a man who took a scope and mounted it on a M2 machine gun and hit a moving target at 2500 yards with a single shot. This is the M2 Ill let you know if I find anything further. Best to you David, Mike

Nothing to fix Mikey... you posted it and than say you didn't... Go find something else to do already, nobody seems to be listening to you. bu bye now David, My apologies, for not being more clear. At the time that Carlos went back to Vietnam, in 1966 there was no official Sniper program in place, the very reason he was contacted was to be a part of building that program. The "after his training" is simply referring to going through the indoctrination that all Marines going over seas go through. You are making the assumption here that this is sniper training and it is not. If you would like I would be happy to loan you either of my books on the topic, both written by Charles Henderson. I only ask that you please return them when you finish reading them. Carlos trained as a member of the cherry point rifle team early in his career and even placed 1st at the Camp Perry Ohio 1000 yard shooting event known in the shooting world as the Wibledon cup. "Before deploying to Vietnam, Hathcock had won many shooting championships.[5] In 1966 Hathcock started his deployment in Vietnam as an MP and later became a sniper after Captain Edward J. Land Jr. pushed the Marines into raising snipers in every platoon. Land later recruited Marines who had set their own records in sharpshooting; he quickly found Hathcock, who had won the Wimbledon Cup, the most prestigious prize for long-range shooting, at Camp Perry in 1965.[5]" As we can see from the above quote, each platoon was encouraged to "raise snipers". At this time there was no "sniper program" Snipers were simply designated such because of ability and that was that. Do you really think that the Marine Corp would have made Hathcock an MP after winning the cup? Of course not. In no way do my words try to discredit Hathcock at all, however, I suppose there was no way for you to have known that. SO my apologies for jumping on your back like that. As far as a Quantico recreation, I have looked high and low for info on this, to no avail. I thought at one time there was one reference, during one of the tests, but seem to have been mistaken in that I can not find the source of that quote. So anyhow again, sorry for jumping on you like that.....and to think we were off on a better foot being all civil and stuff lol. Mike

There may have been a shot fired at 160, but it most definitely was not the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses. The "we know when the shots struck because the occupants of the car turned argument" is a failed one. Mary Woodward said the occupants turned to look at her when she and her friends yelled out. Connally said he turned to his left and back real fast because he was stretching. In short, we don't know why they turned, and pretending we can discern shots by the reactions of but a few people, when dozens of witnesses, including those whose reactions we are judging, disagree with the conclusion the first shot was fired at frame 160, and that Kennedy calmly resumed waving to his right after the first shot, is silly. The first shot miss at frame 160 is an absolute myth. I discuss this throughout chapters 5 thru 9b. A quick summary was already posted on this thread. In chapter 9b I go through Bugliosi's witnesses for a first shot miss, and show how he lies about almost all of them. You may want to take a look. In trying to determine when shots were fired during a silent film, our most valuable resource is to study the visible reactions of the victims and the people around them. JFK's first reactions was during the Towner film. He started to wave and within a half of a second, snapped his hand back, balling it into a fist. Then, within a fraction of a second, he dropped to his left and then straightened back up. Have you looked at my presentation on this? What is your opinion about it? I think that Roy Truly was correct in that the limo braked and came hard left to avoid the curb. I see no reaction from anyone that could even remotely be considered in reaction to a shot. Then why was JFK the only one to react? And if the limo braked, why would that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie?? Please be specific. As for your ridiculous claim that his reaction could not have been to a gunshot, I don't think you believe that at all. You simply jump on any opportunity to fabricate a subjective opinion that contradicts me, without the slightest regard for the truth. That's all part of your little campaign to follow me around from forum to forum and thread to thread, trolling and running resistance, even when you have to make a total fool out of yourself to do it. In fact, JFK reacted EXACTLY as we would expect anyone to react if they had been pelted by debris from a missed shot. And yet, there is not damage to the Limo from your imaginary shot, there is no evidence of anyone being hit by this debris, and there is not one piece of testimony that would concur that a shot had happened at this time. Do you eve have any proof that his hand balls into a fist? Do you have any evidence that he falls to his left? Yep this is another Harris hallucination. As for following you from forum to forum, I am a member here and at Duncan's place, is it not the purpose of a forum to debate and discuss ideas? I know that you would prefer I remain quiet, and not make you look so foolish, but that just is not going to happen. History deserves accuracy, not fool-hearty assumptions. smiling and waving?: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063 And BTW, that article has to be one of the stupidest and most illogical I have seen in a very long time. For example, you said, in regard to JFK's orientation at frame 180. "FK was smiling and waving just as we can plainly see,and just as the witnesses in close proximity testified. " Of course JFK was smiling and waving earlier. But would you please explain how you came to know that they were talking about him at frame 180, rather than an earlier frame? And how does that ridiculously washed out and discolored distortion of the third floor window, prove that it was not broken out? And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what that darkened area really was. And then you said this, which demonstrates that you didn't even listen to the video or were too thick to comprehend what I said, "The time frame from 160 to 223 is 63 frames, or 3.44 seconds. Are we to believe that our sniper up there has managed to remove his silencer and reacquire the target in 3.44 seconds? I would suggest this is a bit much to ask of any of us to believe." ALL three of the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. The one at 223 was heard by no-one, including Governor Connally who was hit by it. Now, I'm sure you will be eager to attack that too, but can't you at least try to comprehend what it is you are attacking?? Michael, I hope you realize that I do NOT call you an imbecile because I want to insult you. Robert, The very fact that you would call me an imbecile rolls off me for one simple reason, it is abundantly clear that you have no clue what you are talking about, so therefore, how could you understand what I am telling you?

From the lancer forums: >DJ- > >Curious, what is the argument over? Hathcock most surely made >the comments attributed to him! Are they saying LHO pulled off >a "Lottery Shot", One in a 100 Million? > >Randy http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6778&hl=hathcock&st=0 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15944&hl=hathcock&st=15 Between Purvis and Williams they try to discount everything to the point of claiming that Hathcock was not "formally" trained!! DJ David Please show me where I have at any point in time discredited Carlos Hathcock. I certainly have not, and ask that you edit your post to address your mistake. To be correct I said Craig Roberts was never trained, not Carlos Hathcock. Will you ever get even the slightest bit of information correct? No wonder you have such difficulty with the evidence, you can not even manage to keep simple things straight. Get it fixed.

Yes, you certainly are. And changing the color of your little picture doesn't change anything. This is the envelope at issue, You obviously posted your photo, not because it reveals information but because it hides it. And why are you dodging my questions, Michael? Are they too difficult for you? Are you actually claiming that because you found a photo which has washed out some of the partial erasures, that they never existed?? Are you suggesting that I, or other conspiracy people fabricated those characters, Michael? If not, then where did they come from?? And even in your your well scrubbed photo, there are clearly character segments under the initials that were supposed to be Fritz's. How do you explain those, Michael? And please answer my original question about how you proved this envelope was legitimate. So far you have only fed us a lot of unsupported claims that you can prove to save your life. And why do you continue to dodge your claim about the Muchmore film? Are you going to tell us why you made that crap up too? Robert, How exactly did I "change the color" on anything? And again, how is the envelope I posted, from Hunts excellent scan washed out? It is certainly a superior copy to the one you posed as claims of forgery. I wonder why you did not use the best evidence when you clearly knew it existed. If you are still contending that there was an erasure made, then how did they manage to do it without damageing the paper, as clearly seen in my sample envelope? I might also add that it does not take a rocket scientist to notice that "BK" is still readily visible long after the paper has been damaged. SO then If you still contend forgery, which would be dishonest at this point, how would you explain the lack of damage to the envelope in evidence?

Mark, Are you asking about the CE842 envelope, or my test envelope? If the 842 envelope, I do not, what I have is just what Hunt posted as his scan in his article. Sorry I could not have been of more help.

Im not sure what you mean by washed out? Surely it does not look anywhere near as degraded as the one you posted. Furthermore Bob any idiot knows (save one apparently) that under the negative image the erasures would stand out. Look at the examples I posted. There is no forgery or loss of integrity on CE842 envelope. Denial is your cover Bob, but the rest of us see clearly there is no forgery. washed out...yeah...right LMAO..... And how exactly does one "scrub" away signs of forgery? Obviously desperate Bob.

Harris, The envelope was not altered, as I have just proven. Please begin a new thread if you wish to rehash 399, this is about the envelope and CE842. Thanks

Perhaps you didn't understand the question Michael. I did not ask you to blurt out another unsupported assertion. Just tell us how you proved that this document was not forged. That should be a simple enough request, even for you. And please tell us where in the Muchmore film, you saw JFK react as he did in the Towner film. The article speaks for itself Robert, you are ....yet again...made to look like a fool. And how do you explain the obvious erasures and alteration on that envelope?? Do you intend to keep looking for copies of the photo that are washed out enough that we can't see them?? Washed out? Funny stuff Robert....Your degraded photo is so much more clear! HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Damn!! You got me on that one, Michael. All those nasty erasures and alterations surely are gone!! I think it must have been God who removed them for you, eh Michael?? So, now that you admit that you have zero support to validate ce-842, will you please tell us why you made up that BS about the Muchmore film? Robert, This is going to get very funny, if you are contending that the photo you have and the one I have are of two different envelopes.....You are not really saying that are you? Where did I say anything about not having anything to validate CE842? Here is a clue there mensa man, there never were any erasures alterations, and you knew this, as you were the one who sent me to the Hunt article! How funny. Your lower than Fetzer lol.

Perhaps you didn't understand the question Michael. I did not ask you to blurt out another unsupported assertion. Just tell us how you proved that this document was not forged. That should be a simple enough request, even for you. And please tell us where in the Muchmore film, you saw JFK react as he did in the Towner film. The article speaks for itself Robert, you are ....yet again...made to look like a fool. And how do you explain the obvious erasures and alteration on that envelope?? Do you intend to keep looking for copies of the photo that are washed out enough that we can't see them?? Washed out? Funny stuff Robert....Your degraded photo is so much more clear! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Perhaps you didn't understand the question Michael. I did not ask you to blurt out another unsupported assertion. Just tell us how you proved that this document was not forged. That should be a simple enough request, even for you. And please tell us where in the Muchmore film, you saw JFK react as he did in the Towner film. The article speaks for itself Robert, you are ....yet again...made to look like a fool. Michael, there is absolutely nothing in that article which even claims to prove that the initials were authentic - that is ZERO, Zip. Nothing Michael. Why are you trying to convince people that there was? And why do you continue to evade my question about the Muchmore film? Is it because you don't want to admit that you just made up this claim about about JFK reacting as he did in the Towner film? Why do you have to make all these phony claims, Michael? Robert, I wonder why you would say the envelope were forged, if in fact, you thought the initials were not authentic. Comical retreat! Compare them to other evidence as DVP did to those of Fritz, the signatures are intact and quite authentic. The Fritz initials are a perfect match, and quite authentic, as are the others. Now your just retreating in a silly manner...

Perhaps you didn't understand the question Michael. I did not ask you to blurt out another unsupported assertion. Just tell us how you proved that this document was not forged. That should be a simple enough request, even for you. And please tell us where in the Muchmore film, you saw JFK react as he did in the Towner film. The article speaks for itself Robert, you are ....yet again...made to look like a fool.

I proved your kooky claim that it was forged is quiet a joke. Now run along Robert, as Bill and I are about to begin to investigate the fragments further, and don't have time for any more of your acute observations. oh...and the limo was blue......how did you not know that?

You have to know what it is before you can have a reason for anyone wanting to forge it. The real question isn't if the enevelop has been forged, but whose initials are on the envelop, who handled the exhibit before it was entered into evidence and what order did they handle it? I also thought that CE842 started out with three items, two fragments (lighter than a stamp) and a near complete bullet? What was in the envelope according to the first person who handled the evidence? And if there was reason for any hanky pankey, I would suggest that the culpret is one of those whose initials are on there. And if the weight of the two/three fragments is more than what is missing from CE399 they must have come from different bullets, and thus the single-bullet-theory is wrong. BK Bill, Now thats what I am talkin about! Thats an argument worthy of pursuit, and not some foolishness about forgery! I should take a closer look at those fragments. Mike

David, Off-zero rifle? Are you serious? Anyhow if you have any hidden evidence of a Mauser or Enfield, I'd love to see it. I would also like to see where the rifle was not found at 122 as stated.

Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Really? Are you sure, or are you on the edge of another heartbreak? ROFLMAO!! Oh, I don't think my heart is at much risk, Michael. wait till you see the next article lol. Your video is the star! I'm sure you have some great smear pieces and a lot of phony claims in store for me, Michael. But first, would you mind showing us where in in the Muchmore film, JFK reacted as he did in the Towner film?? Sure thing there chief as soon as you face the forgery of CE842 lol. Is proving you wrong...again.....a smear campaign? And what exactly did you "prove" michael? Please be specific. That your in denial? www.jfkballistics.com/CE842.html and the limo was blue....Robert....not black....

Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforu...showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.o.../PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Bill, Frankly the reason I dont have comments, is because I dont know how to put them on there LOL. Im learning HTML and its slow going, but I think all in all, Its going well. As for my false assumptions, you can fire away anytime you like, and prove me wrong about anything you like, just please cite the article in your remarks, and we can go from there. I really dont think you wish to get into a ballistic debate with me.....but if you insist I am as always, at your service. I don't have a problem with your ballistics Mike, I have a problem with your false assumption that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper. Now if you can get around the problems addressed by the eight witnesses I give you, and convince me that Oswald was the shooter, then there's no problem. But if you insist that Oswald was your shooter, then everything else you say is BS. BK So if I tell you 2+2=4 and Oswald was the killer, then 2+2=4 is no longer true?Cant beat the CT logic lol You can tell me whatever you want but I'm not going to believe it if you insist on Oswald being the Shooter. And you keep insisting on bringing up CT bullxxxx. Why do you have to mention CTs in every post? I hate Conspiracy Theorists more than you, especially those who claim the Mafia did it. But now I am beginning to dislike those who claim to be Special Expert Witnesses, which you claim to be in ballistics, who go out of their area of expertise and try to pin the tail on the wrong donkey. No, ordering the rifle from a mail order house with an alias and having it delivered to a po box that no po employee remembers handling and the receipt record having been destroyed, when you can buy the same rifle with no id at any department store in Dallas, does not equal 4. It makes no sense at all, except to create a false trail. You want to be a ballistics expert then don't speculate on who is pulling the trigger. Leave the motive to other more qualified experts. BK Bill, Care to show me where I ever claimed to be a "special expert witness"? Can you CT'ers ever get anything right?

Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Really? Are you sure, or are you on the edge of another heartbreak? ROFLMAO!! Oh, I don't think my heart is at much risk, Michael. wait till you see the next article lol. Your video is the star! I'm sure you have some great smear pieces and a lot of phony claims in store for me, Michael. But first, would you mind showing us where in in the Muchmore film, JFK reacted as he did in the Towner film?? Sure thing there chief as soon as you face the forgery of CE842 lol. Is proving you wrong...again.....a smear campaign?

Jerry, You would be perfectly correct. Did you hear the other unsuppressed weapons in the background? They were very quiet compared to being right next to them, this is a good scale for the judgment of how loud the rest were. Also, the thought of someone shooting at a president with a suppressed .22 from a distance of more than 10 feet is hysterical. Mike

Oswald has little influence on the examination of the rifle and ammo Bill, that was the point, you apparently missed. The point of my examining the rifle and ammo was do disprove the CT claims that it was junk...so for the third time...what does that have to do with Oswald? Can you comprehen (sic) that? Of course then you are contending that all the ballistic evidence is a plant and that the SS hid the fragments in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt? Come on Bill, time for a reality check, that Carcano was the weapon, and the only weapon used. Id love to hear your "Oswald Alibi" though! I bet it revolves around one single witness and one that was never before the WC...... Wrong again, Mike. http://educationforu...showtopic=13779 If you believe Baker and Truly crossed paths with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:31.30 pm, T plus one to two minutes, and Baker saw Oswald in the closed west door window and Truly ahead of him didn't, then Oswald didn't walk through that door, didn't run down the steps and was on the second or first floor at the time of the assassination. Also read Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, a primer. http://www.ratical.o.../PGBkIntro.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html In addition, if Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper and did ditch the rifle and run down the stairs fast enough to cross paths with Baker and Truly, he would have had to pass Doughery by the sixth floor elevator and the two secretaries who walkd down the steps from the forth floor, and he didn't. So that's five witnesses. Then there's Brennen and Amos, who said the man with the rifle in the window drew back and stood there for a moment, and wasn't in a hurry, and then there's the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sniper's Next window four minutes after the last shot. So if that wasn't Oswald and it wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who was it? That's eight witness who exonerate Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper. He wasn't there, he didn't do it. Somebody was there, and somebody did do it though. A man, a man with a white shirt, open at the colar, with a pattern baldness at the top of his head, somebody who had an excuse to be in the building and somone who knew that they could take their time and waltz right out of there. And I didn't contend and do not contend that "all the ballistic evidence is a plant and the SS hid fragment in the limo like some type of grotesque Easter egg hunt." What happened in the Secret Service garage after the limo was returned there is a matter of record, and the visit there by the FBI (Orrin Bartlett) and SS agents who discovered the bullet fragments there is extremely significant, and the DNA evidence on one of the fragments should be studied further. The only thing grotesque about it is your misperception and false description of it. And Mike, your smart for not allowing anyone to post remarks on your ballistics web site so you don't have to put up with anyone tryng to correct your false assumptions. BK Bill, Frankly the reason I dont have comments, is because I dont know how to put them on there LOL. Im learning HTML and its slow going, but I think all in all, Its going well. As for my false assumptions, you can fire away anytime you like, and prove me wrong about anything you like, just please cite the article in your remarks, and we can go from there. I really dont think you wish to get into a ballistic debate with me.....but if you insist I am as always, at your service. I don't have a problem with your ballistics Mike, I have a problem with your false assumption that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper. Now if you can get around the problems addressed by the eight witnesses I give you, and convince me that Oswald was the shooter, then there's no problem. But if you insist that Oswald was your shooter, then everything else you say is BS. BK So if I tell you 2+2=4 and Oswald was the killer, then 2+2=4 is no longer true?Cant beat the CT logic lol

Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Really? Are you sure, or are you on the edge of another heartbreak? ROFLMAO!! Oh, I don't think my heart is at much risk, Michael. wait till you see the next article lol. Your video is the star!